The Logical Fallacy of Catch 22

Previously, I have written the short story, entitled, "Catch 22 in Prague." In this short story, a young woman is told by Clerk Tom, at the passport window, that to get a passport, she must first have an international driver's license. Then, at the international driver's license window, Clerk Bill tells her that she must have a passport to get an international driver's license. Thus, we can see that the young woman is caught in a Catch 22 situation. We can see this more clearly in the following logical analysis of the situation:

1. Assume the Causal Logical Syllogism, If A, then B, A, therefore B.
2. If pp then, dl
3. If dl, then pp
4. not pp therefore, not dl
5. not dl therefore, not pp
6. deduce not pp and not dl
Thus, we can see that is impossible to get either the drivers license nor the passport, even though the beuracratic system states that you can in fact get a driver's license and a passport

7. pp and dl if application process completed
8. pp and dl if process completed and not pp and not dl when process used
9. not pp and not dl, and, pp and dl
10. 9 involves a logical contradiction, you cannot have pp and not pp, in the same
time and the same place, and you cannot have dl and not dl, in the same time and the
same place
11. Thus, we can conclude that the application process, above, is a fraudulent, fallacious one, and thus violates substantive and procedural due process, as well as Sheriff's Law.

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.