The Essence of a Valid Rule

With respect to Science or Law, in order for a rule to be valid, the rule must be reasonable in content, scope, and application. To the extent that any universal rule exists and or operates, such a rule must be reasonable in content, scope, and application. And, keep in mind, that given the complex nature of reality, typically, there are reasonable exceptions to any rule, that is, every reasonable rule, in all liklihoood, has reasonable exceptions.

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Fejfar on Nuisance Law

FEJFAR ON NUISANCE LAW

Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.

Anthony Fejfar Article Logic and Mathematics

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

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

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.