Burden of Proof and Intent: Mental Incompetency and a findingOf Judicially Incompetent to Stand Trial: An AnalysisByAnthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif © Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar I once heard a psychologist argue that in order to practice law, one had to be“Judicially Competent to Stand Trial.” I have also heard psychiatric social workersargue that one who is not “Judicially Competent to Stand Trial” cannot own property, or contract. I would like to argue that these persons are mistaken, in part, because the typeof intent required for a particular type of activity parallels the burden of which is requiredto prove a relevant fact at trial.I have argued previously that contemporary science, based on Quantum Physics,tells us that we live in a world and universe of moderate relativism. There is no absolutecertainty in this world or universe, only probable knowledge. Thus, in relation to law,and what is required to prove a fact, or reality, using a legal proceeding, there are threedifferent standards of proof which must be proved. They are as follows:1.Civil Case- property, contracts, tort, constitutional rights at law without equityPreponderance of the Evidence55% standard of proof/reality

2.Civil Regulatory Case- licensure, environmental or corporate regulation,-involuntary psychiatric commitments, guardianships-Clear and Convincing Evidence 85% standard of proof/reality3. Criminal Case- Prosecution of Criminal Defendant-Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt- 99.9999999% standard of proof/realityNow, my point is that in each of the three different proceedings discussed above,the standard for “reality” is different, and thus, the type of intent required to intend realityfor that type of proceeding is different. Thus, the following is true:In order to be judicially incompetent to contract or own property one must not be ableto know reality at a percentage of 55% or better. Now, some type of test is required, Isuppose, but it should generally say that if the person is 55% accurate in the person’sreality perceptions, then that person is judicially competent to stand trial to own propertyand to contract. If a person is alleged to be delusional, or hallucinatory, or havedementia, such that the person cannot form contractual intent or ownership intent,then itmust be proved that the person’s intent is less accurate than 55% or better.Similarly, in order to be judicially incompetent to take care of your own personal or financial affairs (guardianship), or to be judicially incompetent on the basis of being adanger to oneself or a third person (involuntary commitment), or to be judiciallyincompetent to practice law (hold a license), one must not be able to know reality at a percentage of 85% or better. Again, if a person is alleged to be delusional, or hallucinatory, or have dementia, such that the person cannot form regulatory intent, then