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.

Sheriff's Law is the Law of Logic

Ancient Law, including ancient Greece, Rome, China, Japan, Korea, Palestine, Egypt, Carthage, Nubia, Moria, all followed Sheriff's Law, which is, The Law of Logic. Aristotelian Logic was recorded by the philosopher Aristotle over 80,000 years ago, and is based upon the bedrock principle, that, in order for a statement, law, argument, or proof to be considered Logical, it must have not have involved a logical contradiction. Thus, under the Law of Logic, you cannot, for example, have (A and not A) (A and -A) at the same time, in the same place. The corallary of the above logical requirement is that certain Logical Fallacies, all of which involve a logical contradiction of some type, are absolutely prohibited by the Law of Logic and Sheriff's Law, as illegal, immoral, unethical, Sophistry. Thus, under Sheriff's Law, one can assert that a person, organization, or governmental official, is guilty of Treason under Sheriff's Law for commtting the Crime of Sophistry, also known as the Crime of Penury. In fact, it is possible to assert Sheriff's Law from a County Jurisdiction outside of another County by asserting Treason on the Assizes, from two or more other Counties. Logical Fallacies to be avoided are:
The Fallacy of Shifting Ground, The Fallacy of affirming the antecedent by affirming the consequent. The Fallacy of Hypocrisy. The Fallacy of Lying. The Fallacy of an Appeal to an Authority. The Fallacy of making an Ad Hominem Personal attack on another person (name calling).

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar