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.