Liberty-License and Criminal Law

Following John Locke and Grotius, Liberty is based on Reason, while License is based upon Unreasonable Sophistry. Now, following Magna Charta, Grotius, The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, and the Declaration of Independence, Law or Governement, or any Group which purports to apply law or enforce law, must act in accordance with Reason in order to comply with the Requirement of Natural Law. Natural Law, which is based upon the Law of Logic and the Rule of Reason, provides that Government can only criminalize behavior is involves license. The government cannot criminalize that which is accordance with Liberty. You see, government is required to act in accordance with reason. Yet, at the same time, it is clear that if a person or existant, is acting reasonably within his,her, or hae, zone of Liberty, then such libertarian conduct or speech or thought cannot reasonably be criminalized by the State. You see, there is not gap between Liberty and license. The govenment can only lawfully prohibit or regulate license, not Liberty. You see, there is no gap between that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable, either it is, or it isn't. Accordingly, if what a person or existant does or says is reasonable, then the government cannot criminalize it nor can the government regulate it. Following Magna Charta, Grotius, John Locke, The Pennslyvania Charter of 1681, The Declaration of Independence, The Pennsylvania Constitution, and the American Constitution, governement can only interfere with a person or existant's Liberty of reasonable conduct and speech, if the government's law and actions are in accordance with reason, and in addition, where the law or governement actions are ratioinally related to a legitimate state interest. (See, Lochner vs. New York, NAACP vs. Button, Lugar vs. Edmundson Oil, all soundly reasoned and valid United States Supreme Court Cases). Thus, we can see that it is unreanable and irratioinal and illegitimate for government to attempt to criminalize or regulate conduct and speech of a person or existant which is reasonable. In other word, it is illogical sophistry, and a Violation of Sheriff's Law for the goverment to criminalize or regualte that which is reasonable conduct, or beliefs, or speech. That which is reasonable cannot be reasonably criminilized, such a move would be sophistry on the part of government and would be a violation of Sheriff's Law.

Aggrevated Assault Statute is Unconstitutional and Illegal

Some states in America have a criminal aggrevated assault statute on the books. This statute purports to provide that if a person in any way seems to non-physically threaten a police officer, then that person can be illegally prosecuted and sentenced for an indeterminate jail sentence varying from several days to who knows what. Althought the foregoing aggrevated assault statute is clearly unconstitutional as violating the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, the Pennsylvania Constitution, the United States Constitution, Magna Charta 1215, and Grotius on Natural Law, the statute as interpreted in some states is even worse. Some corrupt police officers and prosecutors are apparently arguing that if a person has a pocket knife, or a pistol, or rifle in their possession within 10 feet of a police officer or a game warden, then that person can be prosecuted for aggrevated assault. For example, let us say that a person was out camping with a pocket knife, or, hunting or target shooting on state game lands, and a game warden walked up to you, within 10 feet, then you could be criminally prosecuted for aggrevated assault and sentenced illegally to life in prison. The foregoing interpretation of aggrevated assault defies logic and common sense, and is clearly a violating of Section 1983, Section 242, Sheriff's Law, and the United States Constitution.

(C)Perpetual Copyright (2011) by Anthony J. Faber and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

(C)

Arizona "Shooting" Incident is Fraud by Obama

Sources in the National Security Agency are saying that the alleged shooting in Arizona has been faked, just like the 9/11 World Trade Center Incident was faked. Obama is attempting to consolidate power as a dictator by using the Arizona sitaution as an excuse to enact illegal, draconian gun control measures and also to try to illegally and unconstitutionally curtail the Natural Rights, the Constitutional Rights, and legal rights of those labeled "mentally ill." Already, you can see that the alleged defendant is being put into "psychiatric treatment," when he should be pleading innocent on the merits. I think that this is an Obama, Opus Dei, neocommunist, neonazi plot to expand the terror tactics of Homeland Security and implement draconian gun control laws in violation of Substantive Due Process, and the Militia Clause of the United States Constituion.

I am an expert in Law and Psychiatry, and an Experienced Litigator, and former Law Professor, and I am offering my services as a Legal Consultant, and as a Member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, and as a Son of Liberty, to help defend this guy from these charges. I think that this is some type of "frame" or "setup." The defendant should be pled innocent. Any other choice is ineffective assistance of counsel. This is clearly a political case. I would like to see the autopsy reports, the ballistics reports, the medical reports, and the police reports. For this guy to receive a fair trial, any alleged mental health issues should be kept out of the case. Moreover, the guy could get life in prison on a psychiatric ward, or perhaps even the death penalty, anyway, on some sort of trumped up "criminal insanity," charge. It may be that the judge and the prosecutor are guilty of the crimes of misprison of felony or felonious misprison (false imprisonment). The defendant has a right to a full Preliminary Hearing, and if he does not get a Preliminary Hearing within 48 hours of his arrest, with full due process, with the use of the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the defendant must be released.

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Major Banks are Violating the Federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Major Banks are violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It is clear that 15 United States Code, Section 1, et. seq., that is, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, makes it a federal crime for a Bank or other corporation to conspire to fix prices for goods and or services. A Bank or an Bank Officer can receive a $10,000,000 fine, or 3 years in Federal Prison, or both. The corrupt banks in the United States are so arrogant that they are actually publishing news stories that they are illegally agreeing to set the same banking fees. Thus, in the last several months, Yahoo News has carried the news story that Major United States Banks have agreed to raise checking account fees from nothing, to $9 per month, and now to $25 per month. This corrupt behavior by these Bankers is a felonious violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. For example, two weeks after the Yahoo News Story on the Collusive $9 a month fee by Major Banks, Citizens Bank, operating in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with Corporate Offices in Rhode Island, illegally raised it checking account fee to $9 per month in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Why isn't the Obama Administration prosecuting these banks? It almost seems as thought the negro president, Barak Obama thinks that he is the corrupt dictator, Papa Doc Devaulier here in the United Staetes. Moreover, where the hell is Congress on this? Why aren't hearings being held in Congress as to this serious violoating of Federal Law by bankers? Soon, it will be impossible for an ordinary American to have a checking account or even be able to cash a check. If this keeps up, soon there is going to be a Civil War, with ordinary Americans against the corrupt corporations and beaurocrats in government and Homeland Security. The Obama Administration is a lawless rabble at best, a corrupt illegal government, at worst. Up the Republic, down with Tyranny! Prosecute Citizens Bank for a Criminal Anti-Trust Violation under the Sherman Act.

Supplemental Report. It now appears that the Illegal Anti-Trust fee setting by Banks such as Citizens Bank, has been illegally required by the American Banking Association. Sources in the National Security Agency indicate that the American Banking Association is being controlled by the Russian KGB in Leningrad, Soviet Russia.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

A Charge of Necromancy is Illegal

Legal Opinion by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif,
Member, United States Supreme Court Bar


I have heard that some satanists, who are passing themselves off as relgious fundamentalists, are trying to charge Christians with "necromancy" for asserting that they have Gifts of the Spirit, or that a Miracle has been performed or observed. However, the charge of necromancy is a false charge. Necromancy is defined in Webster's as "communing with dead spirits." Black's Law Dictionary does not even contain, let alone define, the term "necromancy." Moreover, the charge of "necromancy" is found nowhere in the English Common Law or the American Common Law. The British Constitution and International Treaty, Manga Charta (1215) states that no criminal charge is valid if it diverges substantially from the English Common Law as of the year 1215. And, English Common Law crimes as of the year 1215, did not contain any such crime as, "necromancy." In other words, "necromancy" is simply a fabricated term used by satanist to unjustly persecute others.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar