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)