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