Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle

Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle: "You can find the Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle at the website below: www.scribd.com/doc/42016062/41412472-the-Gospel-Accor..."

The Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle

You can find the Gospel According to Saint Jude the Apostle at the website below:

www.scribd.com/doc/42016062/41412472-the-Gospel-According-to-Saint-Jude-the-Apostle

Thanks, Tony Fejfar

Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: God is not All Powerful and Neither is the Pope

Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: God is not All Powerful and Neither is the Pope: "Some religous fundamentalists, have asserted, wrongly, that God is All Powerful. In fact, they even say that 'there is nothing impossible f..."

God is not All Powerful and Neither is the Pope

Some religous fundamentalists, have asserted, wrongly, that God is All Powerful. In fact, they even say that "there is nothing impossible for God." As Tom Shaffer, noted Notre Dame Law and Theology expert might tell us, God is bound by reason and logic. Thus, God cannot do that which is logically impossible. For example, God cannot have a grapefruit exist, and not exist, at the same time in the same place. Thus, we can confirm with Pope Innocent III and Grotius that God is bound by Reason, by His very Nature, and therefore cannot do that which is unreasonable and or illogical. Of course, the only authority that any Church Authority has is by, holding of God Himself, and therefore, every Pope and every Church Official is bound by the Rule of Reason, and anything that such a person might to which is unreasoable is a violation of Canon Law, and is invalid. This is especially true of Relgious Superiors in Catholic religious comunities, such as the Jesuits.

The Derrida Committee

It appears that certain American Academics have a played a practical joke on the American Public. It seems that Jacques Derrida was at one time an alchoholic cuban living in Florida. This guy apparently was recruited at a salary of approximately $15,000 a month to pretend to be the postmodern linguist and philosopher, Jacques Derrida. In fact, it seems that Jacques Derrida never really existed, but was constructed as an illusion by a group of American Professors who wished to play a practical joke on the rest of us. Apparently, the Derrida Committee was composed of Tom Shaffer (Notre Dame), Michael Perry (Northwestern), Sanford Levinson (Texas at Austin), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard), and Charlie Dougherty (Creighton). Apparently, they all had a part in the gag, but Charlie Dougherty, writing dead drunk, had the honor of writing the Derrida material. In fact, it may be that Charlie Dougherty's real identity is that of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother. Will the tables turn, and the joke be on the Derrida Committee at this point? Inquiring minds wish to know.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Fejfar, A Review of the Book, For Derrida by J. Hillis Miller

J. Hillis Miller, in his book, "For Derrida," seems to have read Derrida on another planet. Miller presents Derrida as a progressive philospher. In fact, if you go to the source material on Derrida, namely, his books, "Of Grammatology" and the "Force of Law," you find that Derrida is incoherent at best, and a nazi fascist, at worst. In "Of Grammatology" Derrida spends most of his time in meandaring babble, only, to come to the conclusion, that, "a literary essay is evil." In doing this, Derrida violates both Ockham's Razor and Logical Positivism. Morover, it is difficult to see how Robin Hood, or The Three Musketeers, or The Count of Monte Cristo, are in any way evil. In fact, one might observe that Derrida's ariticle itself, is a literary essay, of a sort, such that Derrida, to be logically consistent, must condemn his own book as an evil essay. Next, in the Book, "The Force of Law," Derrida spends most of his time referring to some mythical "Benjamin" character, and quotes the obscure Benjamin for all sort of uninteresting, and unsubsatiated propositions. The conclusion that Derrida comes to in, "The Force of Law," on his own, without Benjamin's help, is that he recommends that everyone follow the example of the Nazi's, and become a terrorist who "spills blood on the floor" just for the sake of violence as violence. Clearly, Mr. Miller has not bothered to read Derrida's most significant "academic" works, and thus his book review is quite absurd.
(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Judicial Jurisdiction as Civil or Criminal

Following the Common Law and Natural Law, any type of legal proceeding must either be Civil or Criminal in nature. There is no hybrid jurisdiction in court, either the matter is pled as a civil case or a criminal case, and, there is no in between. A civil case can be brought on behalf of a private party, while a criminal case can only be brought on behalf of the state by a state appointed prosecutor. Thus, a prosecutor cannot bring a guardianship case in court, for example. Additonally, a prosecutur cannot bring a civil action for an involutary commitment either. Finally, there can be no case brought for "Criminal Insanity" since this involves some type of hybrid jurisdiction. Thus, the Pennsylvania Criminal Code 18 Pa. Stat. section 314, which is a disguised Criminal Insanity statute is clearly unconstitutional under both Subststantive and Criminal Due Process. The Pennyslvania statute has the crime of being "guilty but mentally ill" which then appears to carry a criminal penalty. And, of course, as I have asserted elsewhere, there can be no crime of "criminal insantity" because such a "crime" would involve a "status crime," which violates the Substantive Due Process requirements of Mens Rea and Actus Rea which are required at the Common Law. Any judge or prosecutor must be careful not to violate the Due Process requirements stated above, or, he or she could do major jail time under
18 United States Code section 242.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Testifying under Oath in Court or in a Hearing

The traditional approach in court or in a deposition is that the person testifying as a witness must first swear to tell the truth. The traditional formula is to require the person to state "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." However, it seems that some persons have religious or philosophical objections to swear an oath to God. Thus, an alternative form is available. The person must say, "I agree to tell the truth under pain of punishment for perjury."

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Medical Malpractice and Informed Consent

If a medical doctor treats you without fully explaining the treatment, then that medical doctor is guilty of the crime of assault and battery, and is also liable to the patient for malpractice. When there is any possiblity of a negative side effect, at all, the patient must be fully informed of that possiblity. Additionally, the medical doctor must clearly state what the diagnosis is and the proposed treatment, otherwise, the medical doctor's treatment is unlawful medical experimentation in violation of the Neuremberg Treaty of 1945, which is enforceable against the medical doctor, in the United States as a federal criminal and civil cause of action for damages. In the case of treatment for an alleged heart problem, or cholesterol, for example, the medical doctor must inform the patient of the consequences of no treament or modified treatment. Often, the statistical studies state the only effect of refusing medical treatment would a slight reduction in life span at the age of 89 years old, or so. It is rational for any patient to refuse inconvenient medical treatment or medical treatment with negative side effects, in exchange for giving up 5 days or 5 months of a person's life, at age 89. Put another way, it is rational for a person to have a steak dinner every Friday night, for life, in exchange for having a life span of 5 days less, at age 89. Medical doctors must start explaining the above factors to their patients in order to avoid criminal and civil liablity.
(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Common Law Rules of Evidence Must Regulate Academic and Political Arguments

The Common Law Rules of Evidence provide a reasonable basis for the consideration of facts and arguments which produce probable truth. Under the Rules of Evidence, there are certain objections which make sense in an ordinary, academic or political argument.

1. Objection as to relevancy. The objection is that the facts or ideas being asserted are not
reasonably relevant to the question at issue, or even, the propostion being asserted.

2. Objection as to hearsay. The objection is that an out of hearing statement is being wrongly
used for the truth of the matter asserted.

3. Objection as to lack of foundation. The objection is that the facts or ideas being
asserted are not based on sworn testimony as to first hand sense experience, and are not based upon reasonable rules, and are not
based upon an expert opinion, by a qualified expert, which meets the standard of reasonable
scientific certainty, and therefore cannot be considered.

If the foregoing rules are used in ordinary, legal,academic and political argument and debate, then the result of such a political arugment or debate will tend towards probable truth, and will tend to eliminate fraudulent arguments and assertions.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Validity of a Judicial Legal Opinion

When an Appellate Court issues a Judicial Opinion, a certain form is used. A valid Judicial Opinion uses the form of : Facts, Legal Issue(s), and Holding or Judgment. Now, you can see below that the form used above parallels and is consistent with Cognitive Psychology and the Scientific Method:

Judicial Opinion**********Cognitional Structure**************Scientific Method

1. Facts of the Case**********Experience ******************** Observed Facts

2. Legal Issues *************Understanding***************** Theory or Hypothesis

3. Holding/Judgment********Judgment/Reflection************ Confirmed
***********************************************************Hypothesis


Thus, you can see that Legal Reasoning, which starts with Facts, and then utilizes both Syllogistic Logic and Analogical Logic, and then Intuitive Judgment, based upon Reasonable Laws, results in a Legal Opinion which is Empircially Valid.

The Legal Definition for Insolvency

I have heard that some corrupt thugs have tried to harass persons with the wrong charge that the person is insolvent because the person's debts exceed the person's income. The foregoing is the wrong standard. The correct Legal Standard for determining insolvency is whether or not the person is capable of making his or her debt service. You do not look at the total amount of the debt, but instead, you look at the debt payment schedule for each month, and compare that to any income or other money available to make the debt service payment. See, National Distiller's vs. Laubscher, 338 So. 2d 1269 (1976). And, if the person is paying the monthly payment, then there clearly is not insolvency. Moreover, if the deft is disputed, there is no insolvency. In fact, the debt cannot be considered valid unless the creditor has obtained a valid judgment in court after an adversarial trial.
(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Legal Duty of a Guardian to a Ward

A Fiduciary Legal Relationship exists between a Guardian and Ward as a matter of law. And, the Legal Relationship between a Guardian and Ward is the equivalent of that of a Trustee to a Beneficiary. Thus, the Guardian owes the Ward a Legal Duty of Loyalty to act in the Ward's Best Interest, that is, the Ward's rational self interest. The Duty of Loyalty of a Guardian to a Ward makes it illegal for a Guardian to in any way benefit personally and or financially from the Guardianship. See generally, the legal case of In re Estate of Swiecicki, 477 N.E. 2nd 488 (1985).

It is Impossible to Predict the Future

Some psychic claim to have the ability to predict the future, this often called, being, precognitive. However, I assert that it is impossible to predict the future. First of all, there is not just one future out, there are many probable futures. Now, if a psychic is accurate in predicting some aspect of the future, all that psychic can ever do, at best, is to predict the most probable future. I argue that the future, at its most determinate, involves at least three probable futures, where each probable future has an approximately probbility of :

Future A 30% probable Future B 40% probable Future C 30% probable


Now, let us say that some psychic, Silvia the Psychic, can see the most probable future, which is Future B , above, which has a 40% probability of actually taking place. Let us also assume that Silvia the Psychic actually sees and predicts that Future B will happen in 5 years from the date of the prediction. Then, Silvia the Psychic goes on the Oprah Winfrey show and makes public her prediction of the future to an audience of 5 million people. Now, at this point the probbility of Future B actually happening will start to change significantly, because, you see, many of the persons hearing the prediction will actually change their lives and their actions at that point in time, and in the immediate future in order to make the predicted Future B, as announced by Silvia the Psychic, more probable or less probable, based on each person's perceived rational self interest. So for example, let us say that Silvia the Psychic predicted that in 100 years, every person on Earth would suffocate to death from lack of Oxygen which has resulted from long term deforestation of the Earth's Forest's, with the result that there were not enough trees to produce oxygen to replenish the Earth's air. Hearing this, 500,000 people organized a political action committee and lobbied congress for legislation which required responsible tree farming, and ended clear cutting. Moreover, the group also got the United Nations to get a Treaty signed by all of its member Nations, to do the same thing. As a result of this, the probility of the Future B 40% mass suffocation scenario actually taking place in the future was quickly reduced to a mere 5%, and thus became a relatively improbable future, with other probable futures, having their probability increasing substantially. The foregoing scenario applies to any prediction of an alleged future, which is really probable future. Thus, even in a non-prediction situation, it is clear that any probable futures, increase and decrease in probability in significant ways all the time, without most people even knowing it.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Traitor Obama is trying to destroy Social Security

It is clear that Barak Obama is a Soviet Spy. Obama is trying to destroy America. It is now being reported that Obama is trying to cut Old Age Social Security Benefits when they are already too low. Since Obama is a sick voodoo satanist, he will probably next try to destroy Social Security Disability payments for the physically and mentally handicapped. Any argument that Obama's actions are financially motivated is absurd. The Social Security Disability Fund has plenty of money in it, and always has. With respect to the Old Age Social Security Fund, all the Federal Government has to do is transfer USAID money going to Russia, China, and African Countries and put it into the Old Age Social Security Fund. Also, it more money is needed, all Federal Government has to do is to use Off Budget, Federal Reserve Economic Development money to fund the Old Age Social Security Fund. As I have argued previously, Keynesian Economic requires that Off Budget Federal Reserve money be put into the economy every year in order to keep the M1 money supply high, so that a recession does not result from insufficient cash circulating in the economy. Instead of the Federal Reserve Economic Development money going to Bank for low interest loans to their Fat Cat friends, the money should go to ordinary people, Social Security elderly, educational grants, and small business low or no interest loans.
They say that Obama is really a moslem satanist who is doing everything he can to put America into an Economic Depression so that everyone suffers, starves to death, and commits suicide, while Obama's rich moslem sheik boyfriends party on cocaine and heroin. The Traitor Obama must be impeached and put in jail for Treason.

Book Review of: Slaveholder's Union

George VanCleve has recently published his book, "Slaveholder's Union" (2010) (University of Chicago Press). To put it bluntly, VanCleve comes to the absurd conclusion that the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution were movtivated primarily to enshrine Slavery in America. There are several points to be made in relation to VanCleve's book. First, the title "Slaveholder's Union" is stupid. While VanCleve's book begin with analysis of the American Republic prior to the American Revolution, the rather misleading title he uses refers to the Union North during the American Civil War of the 1860's, where America was divided between the Union North and the Confederate South. VanCleve would have done better to emmulate the title found in the book, "Slaveholding Republic" by Don Fehrenbacher, published in 2001. Contrary to an assertion made in a synopsis of VanCleve's book, it is clear that the dispositive treatment of Slavery in America is Fehrenbacher's book, "Slaveholding Republic." Feherenbacher comes to the more balanced conclusion that the American Revolution has nothing to do with Slavery, one way or the other. My own scholarship indicates that the American Revolutionary movement laid the groundwork for the abolition of Slavery in America. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 by King Charles II of England states that all laws must be in accorance with reason, that is, they must be reasonable. Similary, the British Constitution, Magna Charta (1215), incorported into the Maryland Constitution, guarantees that each person has a Natural Right to Liberty. Grotius, Europe's' greatest legal philosopher, wrote that all law must be in accordance with reason, and that Natural Law, providing that the Natural Right to Liberty , is inalienable and cannot be taken away. Finally, the American Declaration of Independence and the Pennsylvania Constiution both provide that each person, without exception, has a indefeasible right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness. Therefore, I argue that the intellecual groundwork was laid to declare that blacks also have Natural Rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which act to abolish Slavery. Politically, you can see that if protection from Slavery was not included in the foregoing legal protections, then it would have been possible for there to be Slavery for Native Americans, Creole Whites, Mullat Blacks, relgious minorities, and ethnic minorities. Thus, it became apparent that if Black's could be unreasonably enslaved, then other groups could as well. Thus, both as a matter of Principle, and as a matter of rational self interest, a growing movement to abolish all Slavery began. This is affirmed by the fact that the Treaty between Britain and America ending the War of 1812 bound both countries to eliminate slavery as soon as possible. So, it is clear that the driving force behind the American movement for Independence was politically motivated by a desire to eliminate arbritrary government and ensure Individual Rights of each person based upon a Natural, inherent Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. VanCleve's first try at an academic book is a simpliste effort, and it is encouraging to note that Harvard is still putting out graduates with the caliber of George VanCleve.

Reviewed by Anthony J. Fejfar, Esq., Coif Member, United States Supreme Court Bar

Is Hillary Clinton really a Soviet Spy?

Some Joe Biden supporters are again raising the question as whether Hillary Clinton is really a Soviet Spy. There is some question as whether Hillary Clinton is an evil Wiccan Witch, and also a moslem athiest materialist. In fact, many Bill Clinton supporters are upset by the rumor that Hillary Clinton is really a homosexual cross dressing male who set Bill up with Monica Lewinsky, also allegedly a homosexual cross dresser, in order to destroy Bill's political career and "punk" him. Sources in the National Security Agency are trying to determine how often Bill and Hillary have traveled to Russia in the last 5 years. It is difficult to acertain whether Hillary is a chechnian moslem or a bosnian moslem.

Sense Experience and Science

Some scientists, and logical positivists, claim wrongly, that reality is best known by simply starting with sense experience and working from there. In fact, sense experience is homeostatic. That is, to some degree, sense experience is affected by the environment in which it operates. Thus, a person's hand feels cold when it is place in tepid water after having been placed in a bucket of hot water. Similarly, a person coming out of a dark room into sunlight will have to adjust his or her vision in a way that would not happen if the person had entered a dimly lit room. The taste of some food tastes different when another food is eaten first, such as a food which is either sweet or sour. Also, with respect to hearing, it is clear that human hearing does not cover the full range of sound that is being produced in the outside environment. Thus, a dog can hear a dog whistle, but a human being cannot. Finally, there are optical illusions which can only be explained throught the use of human understanding, such as, why it is that a straight dowel looks crooked when place in a glass tank of water, and then is observed from the side of the tank.

Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Obama Health Care Bill is Fraud

Anthony Fejfar philosophy, law, theology, busines, and jurisprudence.: The Obama Health Care Bill is Fraud: "I have done research on the Official United States Government Website regarding the Congressional Record, which records the legislative hist..."

The Obama Health Care Bill is Fraud

I have done research on the Official United States Government Website regarding the Congressional Record, which records the legislative history of any federal legislation. What I have found is shocking. The alleged Obama Health Care bill has never been passed by the House or Senate, and, in fact, it appears that it has never even been introduced in Congress. It is clear that Obama is trying to become an illegal dictator by "passing" legisaltion by decree, without Congress. Obama must be impeached for being a traitor.

The Scientific Explanation for Intuition as a Cognitve Faculty

The operation and existence of the Cognitive Faculty of Intuition can be explained scientifically. Ordinary, left hemisphere thinking is logical and sequential. Thus, the left hemisphere uses the Causal Syllogism, "If A, then B, A, therefore B." Information is analyzed logically and is stored hierarchically. On the other hand, ordinary right hemisphere thinking is analogical. For example, one analogy that is used is "1 is to 2, as, 2 is to 4." Another analogy is "apple is to oranage, as, banana is to grapefruit." Now, you can see that there is a certain logic to analogical reasoning and analogical thought processes. You see, while straight logic uses the notion, A is B, or, A is not B, analogical logic uses the notion A is like B, or, A is not like B. This type of analogical reasoning is used on a regular basis by lawyers, law professors, and judges, who use analogical thinking when using the "case method" of legal analysis. Thus, lawyers will say, since Case B is analogous to Case A, the legal rule in case A should be applied in Case B. Now, intution is an advanced form of analogical thinking. Intuition involves high speed, preconscious or unconscious, analogical thought processes. In other words, the preconscious or unconscious mind plays with analogies all the time. Thus, you could say that the analogical mind plays and dances. Moreover, when the speed of analogical thougth processes reach a certain level, the right hemisphere, analogical mind goes "Quantum," and begins to function using Quanta, subatomic particles to think, analogically, where such Quanta subatomic particles are really Energized Probability Fields. At this point, the Quantum Mind developes and the person's Intuition goes non-local at a distance, as confirmed by Bell's non-locality theorom. Thus, the intutive mind begins to gather information which is outside of the human body, with quantum processes which operate non-locally at a distance. The Quantum Intuitive Mind is then quite capable of gathering information forward or backwards in time, and, also can gather information from a physical place 1,000 miles away, or even a trillion miles away, non-locally at a distance. At this point, it is even possible that the Quantum Intuitive Mind could communicate with other minds. This is known as telepathy.
Finally, there is a great deal of scientific research which has been done to prove the existence and validity of intuition. My article, here, sets forth the scientific hypothesis as to how and why intuition exists and operates, and the Doctoral dissertation of Tony Bastick, entitled, "Intuition," confirms my hypothesis as scientifically proven. Thus, it is not logical to say that intution is "magic" or nonexistent. Intuition is a scientifically proven Cognitive Faculty that many human beings have. In fact, there are numerous psychological tests which test for intuition as a cognitive facult in a given person, such as the Myers Briggs temperament test, which is based upon the psychological theory of Carl Jung. See, Carl Jung, Psychological Types.
(C) Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

How the Scientific Method Works

Following the Philosopher Hume, Scientific Method involves the use of the cognitive faculties of: Experience, Underdanding, Judgment and Reflection. The old way of looking at this was to refer to science as: Experimental Data, Scientific Theory or Hypothesis, Theory or Hypothesis confirmation or Conclusion. We can contrast the two approaches with the chart below:
3. Verified Hypothesis Judgment and Reflection
2. Theory or Hypothesis Understanding
1. Experimental Data Experience

Now, the way that real science is done is that the scientist starts at level 2 with Understanding, and uses intuitive analysis to look at the world around him or her, with curiousity, and come up with a theory to explain how it is that things are the way they are, or how it is that certain things work the way they do. This involves asking the questions, Who? What? How? When? Where? Then, the scientists generates a theory and uses the theory and creative artistry to set up an experiment, using Understanding, and then run the experiment and use Experience to monitor the experiment and collect the data. Then, once the data is collected, the scientist then goes back to level 2 and Understanding, and then classifies and categorizes the data, and, compares and contrasts the data, reasserting the previous theory or hypothesis, or, changes or developes another theory which is more explanatory to explain how it is that certain things or processes are going on. Once this is done, the scientist then goes to level 3, and confirms the hypothesis or theory using an intuitive judgment or fact or reflection. Thus, we can see how the scientific method really works is the chart below:

4. The theory and hypothesis are confirmed with intuitive Judgment
and Reflection
3. Understanding the Data is categorized, and compared and contrasted
in the context of the theory or hypothesis
2. Experimental Data produced and observed with Experience
1. Understanding and Creativity and Theory or Hypothesis generation

Reification is Trashed

Reification is an idea propounded by communist, critical legal studies (cls), professors, which argues, wrongly, that such important concepts such as Liberty, Justice, Property, Natural Rights, Natural Law, and God, are "reified" ideas, and therefore are invalid. Critical Legal Studies professor, Peter Gabel, defines "reification" as the process which "treats an abstract idea as if is concrete or real." What Gabel does not tell you, however, is that "reification" itself is a false idea. You see, "reification" itself is a reified idea, and therefore invalid. Obviously, the rules of logic provide that if a concept cannot even allow for its own existence, then that concept is invalid or false. Since "reification" is proved to be an invalid, false concept, by a reification analysis, as such, then it is apparent that after such an analysis, we are left with both "reification" and "not reification", and thus a logical contradiction, which renders the concept of "reification" invalid, false, and logically contradictory, or, illogical. Since reification cannot even allow for its own existence as a concept, reification is a false concept which should never be used. The use of the term, "reification" is Sophistry and evil.

Bourgeios Communism is Evil

Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto, said that ideally, the proletariat, or working class, should be in charge is society. Thus, Marx argued that ordinary people such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters, brick layers, day laborers, concrete layers, teachers, and firemen should be in charge in society. Marx taught that the bourgeios upper middle class and the bourgeios wealthy, should not be in charge, because, they often were parasites who fed off the honest work of the working class. However, communism did not turn out the way Marx had predicted. Instead of the proletariat being in charge in the Russian Soviet Union, the bourgeios rich and upper middle class professionals got control of the Soviet Union. In fact, the bourgeios wealthy became the soviet presidium and the politburo, while the bourgeios upper middle class professionals became the bureaucratic apparichnick class. In fact, the bourgeios communists are so corrupt in the Soviet Union, that they will not even allow the proletariat to have labor unions. In the United States the Soviet spy network, the KGB, supports bourgeios communism. Ronald Reagan was clearly a bourgeios communist who did everything he could to destroy government programs which help the middle class and the poor, and did everything he could to favor the bourgeios capitalist wealthy and upper middle class, and, to destroy labor unions. In fact, most KGB agents in the United States, even after glastnos and peristroika in the Soviet Union and the formation of the Russian Republic, remain bourgeios capitalists who are the doctors, dentists, lawyers, and corrupt bureacratic adminstrators who rip off the poor and the working class, often having satanic rules which allow them to charge more in fees to poor people, and give discounts to the wealthy. Real constitutitonal democracy promotes regulated capitalism and reasonable business practices, not the destructive short term, profit maximization promoted by the bourgeios communists here in the United States. We must stop the tyranny of the bourgeios communist KGB in America.

Lochner vs. New York is a Substantive Due Process Case not a Contracts Clause Case

In the law school case books, and in the West Key Number Head Notes, the United States Supreme Court Case of Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), is reported wrongly, to be a Contracts clause case, which involves Article I, Section 10, of the United States Constitution (the Contracts Clause). However, if you read the original United States Supreme Court Opinion in Lochner vs. New York, Lochner was a Substantive Due Process Clause case involving the 14th Amendment, Substantive Due Process Clause. Lochner states that the Natural Right of Liberty, found in the Declaration of Independence, cannot be limited, except in accordance with reason, following Grotius, Magna Charta, and Natural Law. Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in Lochner, states that the constitutional standard for upholding the validity of a law which impinges upon the Liberty interest of an individual person, such as the right to contract with an employer, for employment, must be in accordance with reason. Thus, the Court in Lochner states that for any law to be valid, it must involve a direct relationhship to an end which is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Thus, it is obvious that, under Lochner, it is an unconstitutional violation of Substantive Due Process to interfere with the mentally ill, or ethnic or racial minorities, in contracting for employment, by enacting a minimum wage law which provides a lower wage for the mentally ill, or for ethnic or racial minorities. Obviously, if a person is good enough to do the work, the person is good enough to get paid the same as anyone else doing the same work. This also means that all guardianship laws, especially "professional guardianships" are unconstitutional under Substantive Due Process. Put another way, Substantive Due Process prohibits a "Badge of Slavery." This follows the legal principle, set forth in Lochner, that it is unconstitutional for a state law to unreasonably interfere with the Liberty interest, of each person, to have the power to contract for employment, or enter into any other type of contract. All guardianships are unconstitutional "Badges of Slavery," which violate the Declaration of Indpendence, Natural Law, and Magna Charta. That any "Badge of Slavery" is unconstitutional and illegal in the United States is confirmed by the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ending the War of 1812, which required to United States to begin the process of ending Slavery.

The Nature of Property

Some persons, wrongly, think that Property, based upon Property Law, is the ground itself, with the building on it. Instead, Property is a legal interest which includes, but is not limited to, a right of possession of some thing, such as, a car, a house, a lot, a building, etc. Historically, there are three defintions of Property which can be discussed.
First, Blackstone wrote that Property is like a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a legal right with respect to the thing in question. Next, The First Restatement of Property, published by American Law Institute, defines Property as, the legal meaning relationship between persons with respect to some thing, tangible or intangible. Finally, Critical Realism or Critical Thomism would say that Property is the legal meaning relationship between persons with respect to some thing, tangible or intangible, which we can reasonably judge to be probably valid. Thus, we can see that Property is neither real nor unreal or ideal, but instead, is relatively real. Property is relatively real because it invovles a dialectic of both the ideal (legal meaning framework) and the real (the thing which is tangible or intangible).

The Legal Basis for the American Revolution against England

The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 is binding legal precedent in Pennsylvania Colony as of the year 1760 and earlier. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 provides that all laws, both civil and criminal, must be in accordance with reason, that is, they must be reasonable, and therefore cannot involve a logical contradiction, and must be rationally related to legitimate state interest. Moreover, the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 also provides that provides that all the Laws of Pennsylvania must be consistent with the Laws of England. Since the Law of England, as of 1681, include the individual rights guaranteed to every person by the English Bill of Rights, Magna Charta, the aforesaid individual rights are guaranteed to every person by Pennsylvania Law and the Pennsylvania Constitution, that is, that is, the Natural Individual Right that government cannot deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, and cannot exile any such person, without a Jury Trial of the person's peers, under the Law of the Land, where the aforesaid Law of the Land means that such laws are required to be in accordance with reason and cannot violate Substantive Due Process. Any government actor in Pennsylvania, who, acting under the color of state law,denies the foregoing Magna Charta, Individual Rights, to any person is guilty of the Crime of Treason. Even the King of England himself if bound by Magna Charta.
When the American Founding Fathers enacted the Declaration of Independence, and later the American Constitution of 1789, they were doing so under the authority of the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, and Magna Charta, the British Constitution, also known as the English Bill of Rights. Since the actions of the British government in America as of the year 1760 were clearly in violation of the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 and Magna Charta, the alleged laws and governmental actions of England in Pennsylvania, were void and a nullity, for Treason by both the British Crown, and the government of England. Since the American Declaration of Independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the American Contstitution, all hold of the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 and Magna Charta, the American Government is lawful, and valid, under International Law, as holding of the Monarchy of King Charles II, the House of Stuart, Freeman Anglican, and Episcopalian Catholic.

The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 is Binding Law in Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, is binding legal precedent in Pennsylvania, and cannot be abrogated by any later Pennsylvania constitution, nor by any Pennsylvania statutory law, common law, or regulatory law. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 provides that all laws, both civil and criminal, must be in accordance with reason, that is, they must be reasonable, and therefore cannot involve a logical contradiction, and must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Moreover, the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 also provides that all laws of Pennsylvania must be consistent with the Laws of England, and cannot deny individual rights, guaranteed by the Laws of England. Since the Laws of England, as of 1681, include the individual rights guaranteed to every person, without exception, by reason of the English Bill of Rights, Magna Charta (1215), the aforesaid individual rights are guaranteed to every person by Pennsylvania Law and the Pennsylvania Constitution, that is, the Natural Individual Right that government, or any person acting under color of state law, cannot deprive any person of Life, Liberty, or Property, and cannot exile any such person, without a Jury Trial of the person's peers, under the Law of the Land, where the Law of the Land includes the legal principle that all laws of Pennsylvania must be in accordance with reason, and thus do not violate Substantive Due Process. Any person or governmental actor in Pennsylvania, who acts under the color of state law, to deprive any person of the foregoing Magna Charta individual rights, is guilty of the Federal Crime of violating 18 United States Code, Section 242, and is subject to 10 years in Federal Prison.

The Only Valid Authority is a Reasonable Authority

Following Aristotelian Logic, it is a fallacious or false way of arguing to appeal to an authority, as such. You see, there is nothing to guarantee that a particular authority is telling you anything that is logically valid or reasonable. Thus, the only valid authority is a reasonable authority, and, you must determine in each individual case whether or not the authority is being reasonable or not. The foregoing is consistent with the Natural Law tradition descried by Grotius, and which is affirmed by the Pope, and the Catholic King, King Louis of France, and the Lutheran protestant King, King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. As Grotius tells us, every person, without exception, has a Natural Right, based on Natural Law, of Liberty and Property. This parallels the Philosopher John Locke, who stated that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right of Life, Liberty, and Property, and is also consitent with the Declaration of Independence with states that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Given, the foregoing, it is clear that as a matter of Natural Right, each person can never be required to follow an unreasonable authority.

The Alleged Crime of Criminal Insanity is Unconstitutional and Void

In some states, there appears to a statuory crime called Criminal Insanity. One such statute is found in 18 Pennsylvania Statute Section 314. This statute states that a person can be found guilty of Criminal Insanity if that person has plead not guilty be reason of insanity, and the judge refuses to make that finding, and instead finds that the person is "guilty but mentally ill" and is then criminally sentenced. This type of Crimnal Insanity statute is clearly unconstitutional, and constitutes a violation of Natural Law. Magna Charta and Substantive Due Process, follow the United States Supereme Court cas of Lochner v. New York, provides that any criminal statute must be in accordance with reason, and, additionally, cannot diverge substantially from the Common Law crimes of England. The English Common law requires that a crime, to be a crime, must have as an element of proof of that crime, Mens Rea (specific criminal intent to commit the crime) and Actus Reas (an overt, physical act, constituting the crime). In other words, status crimes, as defined as crimes, violate Magna Charta, Natural Law, and Substantive Due Process. Thus, the enactment of a statute or common law crime involving status, is unconstituional and illegal. The Criminal Insanity statue in Pennsylvania and other states is clearly unconstitutional as violating both Substantie and Procedural Due Process. First of all, the Crime of Criminal Insanity is clearly unconsitutional because it involves a status crime where no finding of specific criminal intent, nor an overt act, is required for the crime. Next, you cannot glom together criminal and civil law. If "Criminal Insanity" is a crime, then it is unconstitutional under Substantive and Procedural Due Process. If "Criminal Insanity" is a civil offense, then there can be not use of the word "criminal" in the statute, and there can be not coeerced incarceration or involuntary commitment. Using civil law to put a person in jail, on a psychiatric ward, or in a nursing home, with the use of coercive force, violates the Liberty interest of the defendant, and Magna Charta, and Substantive Due Process, and is therefore, clearly unconstitutional, and, any judge or prosecutor or psychiatrist, who attempts to illegally confine such a defendant, commit the crimes of False Imprisonment and Section 1983 and Section 242.

The United States Constitution and Natural Law Protects Academic Freedom

The United States Constitution and Natural Law protects Academic Freedom for each person. Magna Charta and the Declaration of Independence each guarantee that each person has a Natural Right to Liberty, and thus, Academic Freedom, following Natural Law, which is based upon reason. Where there is state action under color of state law, which there is in any universtiy, especially in a law school, each professor's Liberty interest, guarantees that professor's Academic Freedom under the Substantive Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Thus, in the faculty review process, and in the law school or university tenuring process, and then after tenure, each faculty member is entitled to the protections of Substantive and Procedural Due Process. Thus, as long as what the professor writes or teaches is in accordance with reason, then the professor must be rewarded, and cannot be punished or fired. In regard to the foregoing, reason is defined as a composite of love, logic, and intuition. Love is defined as a postive feeling going outward. Logic is defined as the use of those logic rules which do not violate the basic Cogntive Psychology, Concrete Logic rule of avoiding a logical contradiction. Finally, intuition involves high speed, alinear, analogical thought processes, which manifest in the person's preconsious mind, or unconscious mind, and which, can go "quantum" and involve quantum non-locality, at a distance.

God, Natural Law, and the Declaration of Independence

The American Declaration of Independence states that God has endowed us with certain inalienable natural rights, enforced by natural law, which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Additonally, Grotius states that natural law, based upon reason, gives each one of us the natural rights of Liberty and Property, which, cannot be abrogated, even by God himself. Liberty is the freedom or freewill that each of us has to follow the Good, in our own way. Thus, any attempt to limit or cancel our Natual Law and Constitutional Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness involves a serious violation of Natural Law which is punishable in this life by prison, and in the afterlife by being sentenced to Purgatory Prison, which, is like Azkhaban. Of course, they say that being sentenced to Hell in the afterlife is even worse. And, in response to the theologians who say that a Good God would not allow any person to spend all of Eternity in Hell, the duration of an existant's or person's stay in Hell is now a finite number, which, of course, could be a period of time such as, One hundred thousand Trillion years.

Kant and Hermeneutics

The idea that there is a Neumenal World and a Phenomenal World is attributed to the Philospher, Emmanuel Kant. Kant wrote that the phenomenal world is the world of sense experience, while the neumenal world is the world of ideas. Kant tells us that we can only really know the neumenal world of ideas, because, starting very early in childhood, human beings only really have sense experience which is interprested and constructed in light of ideas, or, meaning categories. Thus, Kant says that we never really know the phenomenal world of sense experience, as such. Philosopher, Bernard Lonergan says the same thing when he asserts that at Level 2 Consciousness, we only know the World Mediated by Meaning. Do we have any connection at all, then, with the material world of sense experience, which the empiricists claim that exists. Well, the Philosopher, Han Georg Gadamer tells us that us that there are "forestructures on knowing" which are in the human mind, prior to cogntition. Gadamer's position is a type of Neo-platonism, where he asserts that there are essentially, "Interpretive Forms" front loaded into the mind, just as Neo-platonists assert that there are "Immutable Platonic Forms" which are front loaded into the human mind, prior to cognition. However, there is yet another approach which asserts that we can know the real of the "world out there," which is Lonergan, stating that we know the world, or the real, through the cognitive process, of, experience, understanding, and then, judgment and reflection. Now, it is apparent that the cognitive level and operation of judgement and reflection involves a cognitive, intuitive function, not just ideal, analytic understanding. This is consistent with cogntive and epistemological, phenomenological reasearch which states the intuition involves high speed, preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes in the mind, which can go quantum, and thus non-local at a distance, so that the person can have an immediate intuitive sympathy (Bergson) with an object or an idea which is out there is the physical world, and or, the historical world of the past.

A Logical Proof which proves that the All Powerful, Authoritarian, God, does not exist.

Some protestant Calvinists think, wrongly, that God is All Powerful, All Knowing, Authoritarian, and Arbitrary and Capricious. In fact, they say that with respect to this "God", "there is nothing that is impossible for God." Rather, it is apparent, using the following Logical Proof, that the foregoing God cannot exist on his own term, and, put another way, it is impossible for such a God to exist. Consider the following:
1. Assume for the sake of argument that the All Powerful God, for whom nothing is
impossible, exists.
2. Derive, the God for whom nothing is impossible, exists.
3. Given, the foregoing, it should not be impossible for the foregoing God to
take himself out of existence.
4. It is logically apparent, that the foregoing God does not exist because he has taken
himself out of existence, or in the alternative, it is not possible for the foregoing God to
take himself out of existence, and therefore, there is at least one thing that is impossible
for such a God, and thus, in either event, the All Powerful God, for whom nothing is
impossible does not exist.

Now, it should be noted that, first of all, the foregoing logical proof does not apply to the Catholic model of God, where God is Reason and is Reasonable. Obviously, since it is not Reasonable for God to take himself out of existence, he will not even attempt such a feat, and yet, still remains the God of Reason, or the Reasonable God. This is of course consistent with the Prologue to the Catholic Gospel of Johh, where John the Apostle and Evangelist tell us, "In the Beginning was the Logos (Reason) Jesus Christ, and the Logos (Reason) Jesus Christ was with God, and the Logos (Reason) Jesus Christ was God, and without the Logos (Reason) Jesus Christ, nothing came into being.
Additionally, since God is bound by Reason, any religous authority such as a Pope, is also required to be reasonable. Thus, to be valid, all Papal pronouncemets and church teachings must be in accordance with reason. This follows the Philospher and Theologian, Grotius, who wrote the the natural law of reason, which includes natural right of Liberty and Property, cannot be divested by anyone, not even God himself. Grotius writing was affirmed by the Pope, the Catholic King Louis of France, and the Lutheran King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

Symbolic Logic is based upon Concrete Logic

Symbolic Logic is grounded in the Concrete Logic of Cogntive Psychology. Starting with a person's empirical, sense experience, it is readily apparent that a person cannot both hold an
(A)pple in his left hand and at the same time have not (A)pple in his left hand. You see, either there is an Apple in a person's left hand, or there is not, there is really no in between. In other words, we can say that either we have (A)pple or we have not (A)pple, there is really no in between. Now, using a logical inference which is allowed by Logical Positivism, we can now see that the following logical syllogism is valid: A or not A. You see, you cannot have both A and not A at the same time. A and not A at the same time constitutes an irrational, logical contradiction. Thus, we can see that the ratioinal test that logic uses to test to see if a logical argument or proof is valid, is to see whether or not the argument or proof results in a logical contradiction; if it does result in a logical contradictioni, then it is invalid, if it does not, then it is logically valid. Thus, we can see that logic is empircally valid at 100% statistical reliability, or at least 99.9999999% statistically valid. To say otherwise, would for the person to be irrational.

Derrida is Trashed

For some reason, some people seem to think that Jacques Derrida is a competent philosopher. In fact, Derrida is a loser philosopher. Derrida has two major works that are often cited, "Of Grammtology" and "The Force of Law." The problem, however, is that both of the foregoing essays are incoherent crap. In Of Grammatology, Derrida spends the whole essay, essentially babbling, and then, comes to the "conclusion" that a "literary essay" is "evil." Well, obviously, Derrida is absurd. Following Greek philosophy, we know that a literary essay is good, not evil. For example, it is hard to see how King Arthur, or Robin Hood, or the Count of Monte Cristo, are "evil." In fact, the opposite is true. Classical literature reveals reality in a meaningful way. Moreover, it is hard to see how such Walt Disney classics, such as Bambi and The Little Mermaid, are somehow "evil." Next, Derrida, in his essay, The Force of Law, spends most of the essay using a rather stupid literary technique of attributing most of his alledged philosophy to some mythical character, "Benjamin." Then, Derrida comes up with the rather sick, idea, that we should reject Justice which is enforced with reasonable force, and instead, we should become terrorists, "spilling blood on the floor", with violence for the sake of violence. Once again we can see that Derrida is stupid at best.