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

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