You are on page 1of 137

Essays in Critical Thomist Jurisprudence


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar


This Book contains a number of Essays, many previously published,

individually, dealing with Critical Thomist Jurisprudence.


1. A Hospital Patient’s Bill of Rights for Mentally Ill Patients

2. Abortion Law and Equity

3. Against a One Party Communist System

4. Being and Dasein in Heidegger

5. Boxer Shorts, Swimming Trunks, and Indecent Exposure

6. Chakra Stem Alignment

7. Charitable Contributions and Government

8. Christianity not Communism

9. Corporate Social Responsibility of Business

10. Deconstructing Derrida: Deconstructing a Cliff

11. Equity and the Bible

12. Equity: Mom’s Higher Law

13. Form, Matter, Prime Matter, and Substance in Aristotle

14. Formal Operations, Abstraction, and Meaning

15. Freeflow

16. God, Being, and Intuition

17. I Anger Good or Evil?

18. Is Humility Good or Evil?

19. Is the Republican Party Nazi or Communist?

20. Jesus and Commitment

21. Jesus and the Da Vinci Code

22. Joseph the Father of Jesus

23. Judgment

24. Level Three Thinking

25. Liberty and Liberalism

26. Mental Incompetency and the Equitable Use

27. Metaphysics and Quantum Physics: An Analogy

28. Motivation, Management, and Consciousness

29. Neuro-Linguistic Programming and Schizophrenia

30. Part Time Full Time Work

31. Penury

32. Persecution and Commitment

33. Psychiatry and Malpractice

34. Psychiatry and the First Amendment

35. Psychotic Psychiatry

36. Reality

37. Self-Actualization and Work

38. Sensory Deprivation and Psychiatry

39. The Active and the Contemplative Life.

40. The Dao and Jesus

41. The Lineage of Jesus Christ

42. The Equitable Use and Landlord Tenant Law

43. The Gates of Hell

44. The Good and the Common Good

45. The Individual Good, Autonomy, and Individual Ethics

46. The Inquisition is Unconstitutional

47. The Material World

48. The Middle Class Jesus

49. The Moderation Corporation

50. The Multidimensional Jesus: Reincarnation or Resurrection?

51. The Multidimensional Mary

52. Value and the Ethical Matrix

Chapter 1

A Hospital Patient’s Bill of Rights for

Mentally Ill Patients


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Many years ago I took a Health Care Ethics course at Creighton

University. The Philosophy professor teaching the course was Charles

Dougherty, now the President of Duquesne University. In this course we

studied the American Civil Liberties Union, Hospital Patient’s Bill of Rights.

In this Tract Book Essay, I propose a Mental Health Patient’s, Hospital Bill

of Rights. For purposes of this Tract Book Essay, the term “Mental Health

Hospital” shall include but not be limited to any facility which provides

inpatient psychiatric care to a Mental Health Patient.

Mental Health Patient”s Hospital Bill of Rights

1. All Mental Health Patient’s (MHP’s) are to be treated with

respect and dignity by the staff and psychiatrists, and psychologists

at all times.

2. All MHP’s retain all their Constitutional Rights at Law, and as

persons in need, also have additional rights in Equity.

3. All MHPs have a right to reasonable medical and psychiatric


4. All MHPs have a right to reasonable dental care.

5. All MHPs have a right to therapy from a qualified psychologist.

6. All MHPs have a right to outside recreational activities, such as

going for a walk outside, going to a movie, going bowling,

going shopping at a department store or bookstore, going out to

eat at a restaurant.

7. All MHPs have a right to have their stay at the Mental Hospital to

be as short as possible.

8, All MHPs have a right to a snack bar on the Hospital Grounds

where one can buy a snack or soda.

9. All MHPs have a right to a Day Room with comfortable recliner

chairs during the waking hours.

10. All MHPs have a right to a Day Room equipped with Online

Computers and at least two television sets with DVD, VCR capabilities.

11. All MHP have a right to Library access on a Daily basis at the

Hospital or within short walking distance.

12. All MHP have a right not to be over medicated.

13. All MHP have a right not to be physically assaulted by the staff

or other MHPs.

14. All MHP have a right not to be subjected to “protection”

shakedowns, or extortion for money.

15. All MHP cannot be criminally prosecuted for any actions which

they take while in a Mental Hospital.

16. All MHPs have a right to a CD player to listen to music while in

the Mental Health Hospital.

17. All MHPs have a right of access to a library of Music CDs, DVDs,

and VCR tapes.

18. All MHPs have a right to good tasting, wholesome, nutritious,

bland, food for breakfast, lunch, and supper.

19. All MHPs have a right to meaningful group therapy.

20. All MHPs have a right to art activities.

21. All MHPs have a right to fresh fruit as a snack in the Day Room.

22. All MHPs have a right to Catholic Mass, or other religious services

in the Mental Hospital.

23. All MHPs have a right to Spiritual Direction.

24 All MHPs have a right to sit in comfortable chairs in an outside

garden, weather permitting.

25. All MHP have a Constitutional First Amendment right to their

own personal religious, political, and philosophical beliefs, as long

as the MHP is not threatening physical violence to another person.

26. A MHP can only be involuntarily committed by a Judge, either

elected or appointed.

27. Any initial involuntary commitment can only be initiated with

a confinement warrant issued by a Judge, based upon clear and

convincing evidence that the MHP is a clear and present physical

danger to himself or a third person.

28. Every MHP has a right to daily visits and also has a right to

go on visits and outings with family or friends, or a volunteer.

29. Every MHP has a right to a home visit once every two weeks.

The foregoing Rights can be supplemented. The foregoing Rights are

based upon Natural Law, Equity, and the prevention of Discrimination

against the Mentally Ill based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the

United States Constitution and in my opinion are enforceable against both

public and private actors.

Chapter 2

Abortion Law and Equity


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I am Pro-life Democrat on abortion. I generally agree with the

Catholic position that abortion should be illegal in all cases. At the same

time, however, I must admit that it is troubling that so many people, who

otherwise seem to progressive when it comes to social justice are Pro-choice

on abortion. The chief problem seems to be a concern with protecting the

mother’s life as well as that of the unborn child. If both the mother and

unborn child are destined to die, there seems to be an argument that the

mother’s life should be saved at the expense of the unborn child, if both

cannot be saved.

The other argument is that abortion is necessary to stop children

being born with major birth defects. I find this troubling. I believe in the

position which I describe as Catholic Reincarnation. With the help of the

Holy Spirit between lives many of us reincarnate, attempting to transcend

Karma with the power of Christ. It has been written by several authors who

write about reincarnation that many very good people take on physical and

mental handicaps in a life so as to develop themselves cognitively and

spiritually. It seems a shame that any of these brave children should be

aborted and not given a chance to live their lives fully.

Additionally, some argue that it is wrong for persons with particular

religious beliefs to impose their views on others. It is argued that this

violates the social compact and freedom of religion. I respect this argument

although I don’t like the result.

So, in an effort to meet the above objections and still come up with

a Pro-life position, I propose the following position: Abortion at law is

outlawed, except to save the mother’s life, and, abortion by an Federal

Court order in Equity, based upon extreme need, where there is not adequate

remedy at law, is allowed. Some might consider this a Pro-choice

position, but I consider it to be Pro-life.

Now, there are two objections which can be raised. First, why save

the mother’s life, when she could be a saint/martyr, dying with her child?

The second objection is, why use Equity?

With respect to the first objection, I argue that everyone, including

a mother has a right of self-defense. I argue, for example that if a truck was

coming straight at a woman, out of control as a result of the driver having an

epileptic seizure, with the driver’s foot involuntarily full down on the gas

pedal, that the first woman, if she could not move, would have a right to use

a rifle to shoot the driver to force her to swerve out of the way. An even

tougher version of this is a 3 year old child behind the wheel of the truck,

rather than an adult. Even in this case the woman has a right of self-

defense. In this tougher case, it may be that a woman would elect not to

shoot the child driver having the epileptic seizure because she emotionally

just couldn’t do it.

By analogy then, a woman would have a right, as a matter of self-

defense to have an abortion to stop the “truck” of the growing child from

“killing” her.

With respect to the Equity argument, it is asserted, following the

work of Jesuit philosopher, Bernard Lonergan, that the world is too

complex and changing to be sure that linear rules will be able to

appropriately fit every relevant circumstance. Put another way, if we want

a to make a rule as permanent as possible then we should allow for an

equitable exception as a safety valve, otherwise, ten years from now some

law professor will come up to an exception which everyone agrees is valid,

and the statute will become unconstitutional again, bringing with it great

social unrest.

Finally, as a parting note, I would like to address the issue of why it

is important to protect the unborn child from the moment of conception.

Rather than use a religious argument I will use classical philosophy which is

of course pagan. Aristotle argued that before anything mortal exists in act

it must first exist in potency. Thus, the acorn of an oak is in potency to

become an oak tree in act. Similarly, the human fertilized ovum at the point

of conception is in potency to become an adult human being. It is perfectly

plausible that the legislature could find value in protecting human life in

potency at the point of conception in order to promote human life in act.

Chapter 3

Against a One Party Communist System


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

One of the hallmarks of a Communist system is that there is only

one political party. I would like to argue that, metaphysically, it not only

unwise, but in the long run, impossible to have a one party system.

I have argued previously that the Level 2, level of consciousness or

reality, is a Daoist level. The Dao means, in essence that there are two

apposite principles which have been brought into a relational harmony. The

classical example is Ying and Yang, but other Daoist formulations are: hot

and cold, fast and slow, male and female, intuitive and analytic, red and

blue colors, conservative and liberal, up and down, etc.

In applying the Dao reality principle to politics, it is apparent that

there can never be one monistic, unitary, political system. Even in the

monarchial model, there was the Dao of King and Queen. In the medieval

period in Europe there was the Dao of monarchy and church. So, my

argument is that a one party system is contrary to natural law. Perhaps the

most basic political Daoist principle is the Dao of the ingroup and outgroup.

Even where there is a one party Communist politburo, there are still

minority factions, that is the outgroup, on the politburo. I argue for a

Constitutional Democracy with the Rule of Law where there are two or three

major political parties. This works with either a Dualistic Harmonious Dao,

or a Trinitarian Harmonious Tao. Monism leads to disunity not unity.

Chapter 4

Being and Dasein in Heidegger


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In “Being and Time” philosopher Martin Heidegger discusses

Being and Dasein. Dasein is defined as “Being-in-the-world.” Heidegger

spends a great deal of time exploring the question of Being and ends up

arguing that Being is best known through a phenomenological analyis of


I argue, on the other hand, that Being is best known through

Intuition. Philosophical Intuition intuits Being in a direct ontological

fashion. So, I argue, based on Intuition, and Plato, that Being is “Form of

Form,” or, as Jesuit Philosopher Bernard Lonergan puts it, Being is an

“Unrestricted Act of Undertanding.”

Once we have come to an understanding of Being, ontologically,

based upon Intuition, then we can discuss Dasein, or Being-in-the-World, as

does Heidegger. As Heidegger points out, Dasein involves a certain

“thrownness” of Being into the World. When Being is “thrown” into the

World the result is a kind of Authenticity. Authenticity involves Rational

Self Interest, Autonomy, and Self-Actualization. Authenticity is at once

selfish, but at the same time involves giving or, as Heidegger calls it, care.

The authentic person has his own projects, but those projects help others,

either directly or indirectly. Being, then, and Dasein, moves us toward

Justice and Social Justice.


Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time (1926).

Maslow, Abraham, Maslow on Management (1998).

Lonergan, Bernard, Insight (1956).

Chapter 5

Boxer Shorts, Swimming Trunks, and Indecent Exposure


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

When I was in law school, in the first year, Professor Snowden

taught my legal process class. It was an interesting class. Among other

things, Snowden argued that the only really workable epistemology was that

of Coherence Theory. But, let’s save that for another day. The most

interesting thing that Snowden taught that semester was the jurisprudential

idea that asked, “Is X a Y for purposes of Z?” The idea here was, as I

will explain below, that any word X might have a different meaning in a

different context. “Poultry” in one case might include “ducks” and in

another case might only include “chickens.” Let us consider the example


In this example, Joe is walking down the parking lot in the summer in

the city park, wearing boxer shorts underwear. The park has a swimming

pool, and some other kids are playing volley ball, wearing only their swim

suits. A police officer walks up to Joe and says, “I see that you are only

wearing underwear for shorts, I guess I should cite you for indecent

exposure.” “But officer,” replies Joe, “my Dad is a lawyer and we reasoned

through this situation and decided it was ok.” “Really, why?” asked the

police officer. “Well,” said Joe, “I argue that it is ok to wear swimming

trunks in the park, and I offer as evidence of this the fact that those guys

over there playing volleyball in swimming trunks are not getting cited for

indecent exposure. I further argue that boxer shorts are analogous to swim

trunks and since swim trunks are not citable, neither should be boxer shorts.”

“Well,” said the police officer, “I guess I’ll have to radio my watch

commander.” (radio conversation) “Well, the watch commander agrees with

you, you are free to go.”

Now, let’s think for a moment about how Professor Snowden’s

formula applies to the above hypothetical situation, above. Recall, the

formula is the question, “Is X a Y for purposes of Z?” If we plug in some

ideas from above we get the following: “Are the ‘boxer shorts’ a pair of

‘swim trunks’ for purposes of the ‘indecent exposure ordinance’?” Here

we look to how close the analogy is and then to underlying public policy of

the statute or ordinance.

With respect to the closeness of the analogy it is apparent that boxer

shorts and men’s swim trunks closely resemble each other. They are both a

type of men’s short, having approximately the same length of leg. Both

seem to be made out of cotton. The boxer shorts have a different design on

them, but this seems to be an incidental or “accidental” difference. Since

the two seem to be so close, let us now consider the underlying public policy

of the ordinance.

The basic idea of the ordinance as applied to a male, is that a person’s

male genitals are not to be exposed to public view. It is argued that since

both the boxer shorts and the swim trunks hide the genitals of the wearer,

then they should be treated the same for purposes of the ordinance. So, it is

argued that “the ‘boxer shorts’ are ‘swim trunks’ for purposes of the

ordinance, and since kids with ‘swim trunks’ are not cited, so too a kid with

‘boxer shorts’ should not be cited.”

Chapter 6

Chakra Stem Alignment


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I get a great deal of my information that I use in my writing from

my Intuition. My Intuition guides me and gives me insights. One of the

insights that I have come upon is that many of us, or perhaps even all of us,

have a Chakra Stem. If you are familiar with Eastern Spirituality, it is

asserted that the human body has 7 or 8 Chakras or Energy Centers which

are located from the top of the head down the spine to the pelvic area.

In my own inner work, I have discovered that the Chakras can be

programmed to accomplish different things, mentally, and spiritually. By

using self programming or hypnosis, it is possible to program one’s

Chakras. Previously, I have discussed levels of Consciousness. I have

programmed my Chakra stem so as to parallel these levels. The levels are

as follows:

Anthony J. Fejfar’s Chakra Stem

Levels of Consciousness

12. Liberty

11. Wisdom

10. Being

9. Abba Being

8. Logos, Creative Form, Reason

7. Higher Love

6. Intuition

5. Creativity Hermeneutics

4. Gray Being Formal Operations

3. Judgment and Reflection

2. Understanding

1.1 Experience

1.0 Being, on illiteration The God of Being

0 Substance Holy Spirit

Now, you may wonder why God isn’t on my Chakra Stem. I have

found through trial and error, personal experimentation, that placing God

directly on your Chakra Stem, especially at level 1, just does not work.

Most people have faith in God not knowledge of God. My system is

designed to produce a certain amount of Spiritual Knowledge, but not at the

expense of faith. Additionally, I experienced a very negative psychic

reaction to placing God at level 1 on my Chakra Stem. I felt I was under

psychic attack and felt very sick. So I changed it back what it is now.

If you are interested in having a Chakra Stem alignment, you may

wish to pattern your Chakra Stem after the alignment that I am using. I find

it to be very positive.

Chapter 7

Charitable Contributions and Government


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Some people hate government and want to dismantle it. Others love

government and want it to do more. I argue that non-corrupt government is

basically a good thing following the Thomistic tradition. Thomas Aquinas

argued that government was a natural and good outcome of human


Given that good government is good, I would like to argue that

people should be able to make monetary contributions to individual

governmental units, and, that those monetary contributions be tax deductible

as a charitable expense. For example, in the Pittsburgh, Allegheny

County area we have Mayview, a State Mental Hospital, although there is

talk about closing it. If I think that Mayview is doing a good job of helping

people then why shouldn’t I be able to make a charitable contribution to

Mayview to help with their programs. Similarly, there are typically city or

county general hospitals in many cities, why shouldn’t I get a tax deduction

for contributing money to them. What if the local prosecutor is tough on

consumer fraud and is doing a great job. Why couldn’t I make a charitable

contribution to the local prosecutors office so that they could give raises or

bonuses to the attorneys working there?

Some might argue that the charitable contribution to government

policy would cause corruption. As long as the check says, “no strings

attached,” then I don’t think it should be considered a bribe. If we can

make campaign contributions to politicians then we should certainly be able

to give money directly to government. I don’t think that this kind of

influence is corrupt.

Chapter 8

Christianity not Communism


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx quotes the German

Socialists for the proposition, “To each according to his or her need, from

each according to his or her ability.” If Communism means anything at all,

it is that which is found in the above quote. I would like to argue, however,

that the real source of “to each according to his or her need, from each

according to his or her ability” finds its roots in the Christian Gospels,

written long before the Communist Manifesto.

Let us first consider the idea, “to each according to his or her

need….” This proposition is simply a statement of the principle of Equity

which is found in the Christian Gospels and the the work of the Greek

Philosopher Aristotle. In the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana of

Galilee, Mary asks Jesus to intervene in Equity so as to save the Wedding

Feast from disaster. The hosts were running out of wine and didn’t know

what to do. Jesus performed a miracle turning water into wine as an

Equitable Exception to the General Rule that it was not yet his time to

perform miracles.

Similarly, in the parable of the Good Shepard, Jesus points out that the

Good Shepard will leave the flock (with minimal needs) and go out and find

a lost sheep (in great need). Once again Equity intervenes to provide a

unique solution to a problem where someone is in great need. Thus, I argue

that the idea of “to each according to his or her need” comes from the

Christian Gospels, not the Communist Manifesto.

Similarly, the second half of the the statement taken from the

German Socialists and the Communist Manifesto, is the proposition, “from

each according to his ability.” Once again the roots of this proposition can

be found in the Christian Gospels. In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus tells

us that to the extent we are given talents, we have a responsibility to develop

them. From the foregoing comes the ethical rule, “to whom much is

given, much is expected.” Once again this is a statement of moderate

relativism. The person with money and talents is expected to use them to

promote the Good and to Self-Actualize (Maslow). Once again, this

proposition comes from the Christian Gospels and not from the German

Socialists nor the Communist Manifesto.

Chapter 9

Corporate Social Responsibility of Business


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Previously, David Engel wrote an interesting article dealing with

social responsibility of business (David L. Engel, An Approach to

Corporate Social Responsibility, 32 Stanford Law Review 1 (1979)). I wrote

a response to that article, entitled, Anthony J. Fejfar, Corporate Voluntarism:

Panacea or Plague, A Question of Horizon, 17 Delaware Journal of

Corporate Law 859 (1992). In this Essay I will summarizing some of

those arguments and will be presenting some new arguments in favor of

Social Responsibility of Business.

In his Book, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls argues

that a rational and autonomous person in an “Original Position,” would

make certain choices. I we place an ideal shareholder in the Original

Position, it is argued that a Property oriented Liberal would choose to

maximize profit at the expense of everyone else. It is even argued that the

Property oriented Liberal would favor corporate lobbying which would

result in “unjust” laws which would enable the corporation to make even

more money. In such a situation, it is argued that corporations would be

placed above the law in violation of Liberal principles such as equal

protection and fair legislative representation, and, that this is unjust.

On the other hand, Duty-Conscience oriented Liberals take the

position that they can act autonomously in a socially responsible manner,

even if this is not profit maximizing, at least in the short term. The idea is

that persons are not supposed to harm others and that the law cannot regulate

every circumstance. Therefore, business ethics are needed to ensure that the

corporation is acting properly. The counterargument to this, however, is

that ethics are subjective and that ethics should not be used at the expense of

the profits which should be going to the shareholders.

A third approach to the foregoing is to argue that Liberalism that

works, is based upon Natural Law and Metaphysics. On this approach,

every corporation has a duty to be ethical and responsible, objectively using

the Natural Law decision-making tool, known as the Ethical Matrix. The

Ethical Matrix utilizes four complementary Natural Law Principles:

Reciprocity, Utility, Proportionality, and Equity.

Reciprocity can be used in a variety of different ways as an ethical

principle. In the first instance, reciprocity means, “treat another as you

would wish to be treated in similar circumstances.” In other words, never

do something to someone else unless you would like to have it done to you

in similar circumstances. Additionally, reciprocity means, “as you judge,

so you shall be judged.” Finally, reciprocity means, “as you treat others so

you shall be treated.” This is a variation of the law of Karma, the law of

cause and effect.

The second Natural Law Ethical Principle is that of Utility. Utility

means, “maximization of Value.” In order to maximize value, you must

have a scale of values against which to measure your conduct. As a Liberal,

my highest value is Rational Self Interest. My second highest value is my

Autonomy. My third highest value is to help others, especially those in

need. I suggest that you stick with the first two values, as locked in, and

then experiment from there on your own. I find the Old Testament Book of

Isaiah to be very persuasive, so I choose as my third value, trying to help

others, especially those in need.

The third Natural Law Ethical Principle is that of Proportionality.

Proportionality is a mathematical ethical concept. Perfect proportionality is

found in a 1:1 ratio, and geometrically in the idea of an equalateral triangle

dissected down the middle by a line which is perpendicular to the base of the

triangle. The two sides mirror each other perfectly and are perfectly

proportional. Proportionality is found in the idea that the amount a person

is damaged should be equal to the amount of damages paid to the person by

the wrongdoer. Proportionality also mean equality before the law. All

other things being equal, two similarly situated persons should be treated

equally, or the same, before the law.

Finally, the last Natural Law Ethical Principle is Equity. Equity

favors the one in need, especially the poor, the mentally handicapped, the

physically handicapped, the elderly. Equity makes an Equitable Exception

from a general rule at law, based upon need. While it is true that Equity

follows the Law, it is also true that the Law must be Equitably interpreted.

Equity abhors an injustice, especially when there is no adequate remedy at


The way the Ethical Matrix works, then, is that one places oneself in a

position, reciprocally based upon certain values flowing from Utility.

Typically, then, you try to generate a general rule using Proportionality.

Finally, one double checks with Equity to see if there are grounds for an

Equitable Exception from the rule generated at law. I argue that, all other

things being equal, this approach will produce a profit for the business


Chapter 10

Deconstructing Derrida: Deconstructing a Cliff

A Satirical Allegory


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Let us imagine that a law professor has gone up to Harvard and has

sat in on a seminar dealing with deconstruction ala Derrida. Professor Jones

comes back to Widemount University School of Law and begins a faculty

presentation about deconstruction. Jones begins by arguing that linguistics

are the basis for reality. Put another way, linguistic deconstruction shows us

what reality really is. Jones then takes the example that he learned at

Harvard, that a “Cliff” could be linguistically deconstructed to show the

ultimate nature of the Cliff. Jones starts out with a nice picture of a cliff

face of rock at the base of the Grand Canyon. He points out that the word

“Cliff” is culturally subjective and in a sense does not really exist.

Undoudtedly, “Cliff” was a word which developed in a racist, patriarchal

society and must be exposed by deconstruction for what it really is, that is, a

culturally arbitrary covention which lends a certain trajectory of meaning

regarding a rock face.

Unfortunately for Professor Jones, Professor Fejfar, a Critical

Thomist at Widemount University School of Law raises a few awkard

questions. “Professor Jones, aren’t you taking a remarkably one sided

idealist approach to this question. Over 400 years ago Shakespeare asked

“would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?” In this context, I would

ask, “would a cliff by any other name stop being a steep rock wall?” The

answer is no.

Professor Fejfar argues that linguistic deconstruction does not really

by itself disclose the nature of reality. It may say something useful, but not

enough to persuade us that deconstructing the word “Cliff” actually

deconstructs ‘Cliff’ itself. So, for example let us say that there are several

different words for the word “Cliff,” such as cliff, cliffo, rocko, etc. I

suggest that however much we deconstruct the words, cliff, cliffo, and

rocko, that all other things being equal the real cliff itself will be there the

next morning. If Professor Jones insists upon deconstructing “cliff’ right in

front the real cliff rock face, I think that he will find that if he walks into the

cliff face he will break his nose. In fact, I would argue that to prevent this

from happening over and over again, Professor Jones would have to get into

a backhoe or other machinery and physically dig out the cliff face until it no

longer exists. This is real physical deconstruction as opposed to linguistic

deconstruction. Think about it.

Chapter 11

Equity and the Bible


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The notion of Equity is first found explicitly in the work of the

philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle asserted that an equitable exception must be

made to a general rule to avoid an absurd or wrong result. In Western

history, however, Equity combined with ecclesiastical law, that is Christian

church law, in the medieval period. Ecclesial law often finds its origin in

the Bible. When one looks at the modern Equitable doctrine of

Unconscionability which renders certain contracts void, it is clear that

Equity favors those who are disadvantaged, or in need. The notion that

Equity favors those in need is based both on Natural Law, which is Higher

“Mom” Law, as well as the Christian Bible.

In the Old Testament, in the Book of Isaiah, it is clear that Judges are

to favor and protect the poor and the handicapped. Similarly, as I have

argued before, in the Christian Gospel in the story of Mary, Mother of

Jesus, at the Wedding Feast at Cana of Galilee, it is clear that Mary

intervened in Equity to have Jesus perform a miracle, turning water into

wine, and saving the wedding reception from disaster. Jesus could only act

in Equity, he was forbidden, at Law, by God the Father at that point in his

career to perform miracles.

Finally, Jesus himself shows that he acts in Equity in the story of the

lost sheep. In this parable, Jesus points out that a good shepard leaves his

flock of good, healthy, sheep, in order to find and rescue a lost sheep who

has strayed from the flock. Obviously, the lost sheep was in some sense

liable at Law for getting lost or wandering off. The good Shepard, acting in

Equity, favors the sheep most in need and goes after him, leaving the

healthy, law abiding sheep to take care of themselves.

Jesus, of course, is the good Shepard. Jesus will leave his flock of

followers in the church to seek out a straying or lost sheep who has left the

flock or the church. Strictly, speaking, this means that Jesus, and those of us

who follow him are instructed to go after the “fallen away” Catholics or

Christians who have left the church. In a more secular setting, we are to

help the poor, the elderly, the working poor, the sick, the handicapped, even

those in jail. This is real Equity.

Chapter 12

Equity: Mom’s Higher Law


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Ken Wilber argues that there are two levels of female

consciousness, the first is the smothering mother level, the selfish mother of

level 2 consciousness, and the second is the Goddess or Feminine Wisdom

level of level 5 Consciousness. I argue that Equity is a manifestation of

the Goddess or Higher Feminine Wisdom of Level 5 or perhaps even

level 11. Instead of starting with rights, as Law does, Equity starts with

need. Equity favors those most in need. Equity favors the poor, the

working poor, the working middle class, the handicapped, the elderly. All

other things being equal, Equity will favor a little old lady plaintiff over a

sophisticated rich businessman. Now where does all of this come from?

Well I would like to contrast two different types of Mothers. The Spider

Mother, and the Equity Mother.

The Spider Mother bases her instinct and life on that of the female

spider. The female spider devours her male mate after copulation and then

devours as many of her children as she can before they can run away. The

human Spider Mother is the same. As soon as the children are born she does

everything in her power to destroy her husband, even poisoning him if

necessary. Her attention then focuses on her children. She is an abusive

mother with a control complex. Her children must be perfect, and perfectly

obedient or she is tempted to take them to Mexico and sell them into white

slavery. She has no problem turning her children into prostitutes. If she

has a sick child, she makes that child fend for him or herself. She never

nurtures a sick child. If the child gets even sicker and dies, the Spider

Mother sees this as the problem of the weak child. Any compassion is

seen by her as a sign of weakness.

The Equity Mother, on the other hand follows higher Wisdom. The

Equity Mother favors those in her family most in need, typically, her

children. The Equity mother takes care of and nurtures the slow or sick

child. In fact, it might seem that the Equity Mother loves her sick child

more than her healthy children. To the healthy children, this may seem


If one has a difficulty understanding Equity, then, one need only look

around and find an Equity Mother. I argue that Equity was the first, most

basic law on this planet, preceding individual rights based upon merit. In

our society we find the balance between law and equity in the formulation

that equity makes an equitable exception to a general rule based upon need.

Chapter 13

Form, Matter, Prime Matter, and Substance in Aristotle


© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In Aristotle’s Ethics, in the Appendix, Form, Matter, Substance, and

Prime Matter are discussed. Substance is in Greek, Ousia, which is often

referred to as the word associated with the Holy Spirit. In the Nicean

Creed, we find that the Father and the Son share the same Ousia, or

Substance, or Holy Spirit. Unfortunately in the Catholic mass, this has

been changed to the Father and Son share the same Being, which argues for

a different notion of unity in the Trinity. Being is the metaphysical quiddity

associated with God the Father. The unitive principle in the Trinity has

traditionally been thought to be the Holy Spirit. Logos is the metaphysical

quiddity associated with Jesus the Son of God.

In the appendix to Aristotle’s Ethics, it is pointed out that that which is

essentially a person or thing is that person’s substance. As I have argued

previously, the Holy Spirit is the substance or Soul or Oversoul of God

which manifests as the individual soul of each person.

Similarly, the Council of Nicea also discussed the doctrine of

transubstantiation, that is, the transformation of the bread and wine of the

Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, as far a material

accident is concerned, the bread and wine maintain the apprearance of bread

and wine and in fact are materially still bread and wine, however, what has

also happened is that the bread and wine has been transformed into the

Substance of Jesus Christ, that is, His Substantial Body and Blood, not his

material body and blood. In fact it may very well be that the Glorified

Body of Jesus Christ after the ressurection was and is his Substantial Body,

not his material body. Substance can be physical but not material.

Presumably, in the tomb, the material body of Jesus went Quantum, became

Quantum Energy, and was transformed into His Substantial Body or

Quantum Body.

Finally, it is interesting that Aristotle rejected the existence of Prime

Matter. I argue that Prime Matter is not Substance, but is another

metaphysical quiddity altogether. Interestingly, modern science seems to

have made the mistake of equating substance with matter. I argue that

Prime Matter and Substance are close to being the same concept and that

perhaps Prime Matter does exist. If Prime Matter does exist, perhaps it is a

manifestation of the Quantum Field.

Chapter 14

Formal Operations, Abstraction, and Meaning


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have an interesting argument to make. I argue that some people

simply cannot conceptualize the idea that an individual word can have more

than one meaning. This is a sort of cognitive fundamentalism. Let us

take an example. Consider these two words “black cat.” Now, the

fundamentalist will assume, naively, that “black cat” is simply a four legged

small animal with dark fur. However, there is at least one other meaning,

and that is “fireworks.” In some parts of America, on the Fourth of July,

inch and a half firecrackers called “black cat” are sold and used. So, if I,

on the Fourth of July said to my buddy, “hey give me a black cat,” I most

likely will be give a firecracker and not a small dark animal. I argue that

the ability to understand that one word can simultaneously have more than

one meaning is a type a abstraction which involves a kind of formal

operations, cognitively. People who cannot abstract using formal

operations should not be lawyers, judges, law professors, or legislators.

There is another type of abstraction that is also important. If I see tall

“plant” 25 feet tall with a trunk, branches, and leaves, then this is most

likely a “tree.” However, in Spanish it would be an “arbol.” Similarly, as

I have argued previously, a small plant with branches and leaves could be

called a shrub, or a bush, or some scrub. Once again, for some people it is

impossible for them to understand that a given object might have more than

one word which describes it. This is, again, a type of cognitive

fundamentalism. Those with formal operations can see that one object

might simultaneously be a bush and a shrub.

Now, this is a serious matter because in law, the same word or words

can have different meanings in different contexts. So, for example, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a “Concealed Weapons” criminal

statute. Without reading the statute one might think that if I carried a

hunting knife or a lock blade knife under my shirt I would be violating the

statute and could go to jail. However, if one were to read the definition of

“Concealed Weapon” actually found in the statute, one would find that the

only type of knife prohibited for a person to carry by the statute is a “switch

blade knife.” Obviously the statutory definition and the “commonsense”

definition are not the same. The commonsense definition is wrong. Once

again, if one cannot understand the difference between a commonsense

definition and a statutory definition, then one should not be a lawyer, a

judge, a law professor, or a legislator.

Chapter 15



Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Often, authors are asked where their ideas come from. The mundane

mind seems to think that ideas always come from someplace else or

someone else. Original writing is inspired. Without wanting to imply too

much, I can honestly say that all of my writing is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

My creativity comes from the Holy Spirit.

How does the Holy Spirit work? Well, as I have said before, I have

a “True Self” which is at once both myself and the Holy Spirit, in a very

deep spiritual way. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit is often arational, and

curvelinear, not strictly speaking, rational. The inspiration of the Holy

Spirit becomes irrational only when irrational Love is involved, rather than

arational Wisdom. My philosophy is largely arational, somewhat rational,

and rarely irrational. As far as I can tell, the only irrational aspect of my

philosophy, Critical Thomism, is Love. Love can get you to do some

pretty crazy things sometimes. Love takes risks. Love dares to go where

no one has gone before.

I don’t talk about Love very much in my work, but it is definitely

there. It is Love which forces the author to go beyond mundane

constrainsts of conventional morality and try something different, even at

some personal risk to oneself. Anytime someone comes out with a new or

different philosophy it is often subject to mundane ridicule. Love, and the

Holy Spirit inspires the author to move beyond such idiocy and to write that

which should be written.

Now, you might ask, where does the Holy Spirit come from? Well,

of course, the Holy Spirit is one Person of the Trinity of God, but even more

can be said. The Holy Spirit is Substance. The Holy Spirit is the basis for

the Real, even more so than Being. Substance is “Formless Form.”

Substance is the Absolute, ala Bergson. The Absolute is Absolute

Relationality. The Holy Spirit is Absolute Relationality.

Of course Substance and the Holy Spirit also involve Love. How

many of us would have taken the risk of getting married if we had not been

inspired by the Love of the Holy Spirit? It is the Holy Spirit that not only

asks us to take risks, but forces us to take risks. It was this Holy Spirit that

guided and inspired the Disciples of Jesus to go from town to town

preaching the Good News of the Gospel, with only the clothes on their

backs and little or no money. It was this same Holy Spirit that drove Jesus

into the desert for 40 days to take the Spirit Journey and do battle with

Satan. If we listen to the whisper of the Holy Spirit in our Hearts, we will

do better.

Chapter 16

God, Being, and Intuition


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

For some people, I suppose, the God question never comes up. It

simiply isn’t on the radar screen. I suppose such people somehow have not

reached the stage of development where meaning becomes important. It is

at Stage 5, the hermeneutic level of consciousness that meaning becomes

important. The person desires meaning both personally and ontologically.

The level 5 person wants his or her existence to be meaningful.

As the Buddists tend to suggest, conventional people are in some

ways asleep. Instead of searching for meaning, they search for conventional

acceptance and conventional power. Coventional “meaning” and power are

the antithesis of meaning. Mundania is not meaningful. So, the Liberal at

level 4 and the artist and poet at level 5 seek meaning in a different way.

Liberal meaning at level 4 is better than mundane conventional

“meaning.” Real Liberals, however, believe in Being and metaphysics to

ground their Liberalism rather than convention. Liberalism which is

grounded in Being and metaphysics is Classical Liberalism. Classical

Liberalism is not based upon convention or extreme relativism, but instead

is based upon moderate truth, moderate idealism, moderate realism, and

moderate relativism.

When one begins to intuit Being at level 6, then the search for

meaning and the search for God begins to reach fruition. When one intuits

Being, one begins to be spiritually in touch with God the Father. Being is

objective and impersonal while God is a person and personal. Being

manifests God the Father and God the Father manifests Being. Being is the

Mind of God the Father. Being is the Mind of God. If you find God, you

will eventually find Being, if you find Being, you will eventually find God.

God the Father is the God of Being. To find God the Father, then, meditate

on Being.

Chapter 17

Is Anger Good or Evil?


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 158, Thomas

Aquinas considers whether anger is good or evil. In Question 158, Article I,

Aquinas defines anger as the desire for revenge. He then continues on to

take the position that anger in accordance with right reason is good, while

anger not in accord with right reason is evil. Similarly, in Question 158,

Article II, Aquinas asserts that anger whose end is Justice, is good while

anger which promotes injustice is evil. Finally, Aquinas argues that only

moderate anger is good and that immoderate anger is evil. Id.

I argue that for anger to be good, it must be ethical anger directed

toward the Good as an end. I also argue that the purpose of anger should be

a proportional response to an injustice, not revenge. Anger which abhors

that which is unethical is good. That which is unethical is that which is not

in accordance with the natural law principles of reciprocity, utility,

proportionality, and equity. Ethical anger is just anger. Ethical anger

which is directed toward social injustice is also good. Finally, however, as

Aquinas notes, one should never allow one’s anger to become so strong that

one loses one’s ability to reason. Anger which clouds good judgment and

reason is not good, but evil.

Chapter 18

Is Humility Good or Evil?


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 161, Thomas

Aquinas takes the position the humility is a virtue, or good. I argue on the

other hand, that the only humility is false humility and that humility is evil.

Now, for the human being to be moved to act, the intellect or the emotions

must move the will and then the will moves the body. I argue that one

cannot have a strong intellect without having a positive sense of Self-esteem

or Self-confidence. Self-confidence is the virtue which should be extolled,

not humility. On the other hand, it is equally true that a puffed up sense of

egoistic pride is also evil and non-productive and should be avoided.

The True Self of the Holy Spirit produces Self-confidence. Without

Self-confidence the Holy Spirit could not operate. The Holy Spirit teaches

us to love Justice and Equality and to hate injustice and conventional

morality and conventional authority. One cannot be competent at what one

does, vocationally, without Self-confidence. Self-confidence and the Holy

Spirit abhors humility and obedience to conventional authority.

I have never met a person who is genuinely humble, but rather, have

only met hypocrites who pretend humility. Humility needs to be replaced

with Self-confidence. Pride needs to be replaced with Self-confidence.

This should be our goal.

Chapter 19

Is the Republican Party Nazi or Communist?


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Is the Republican Party Nazi or Communist? That is the question.

The answer? Well, let’s see. Let’s do a comparison of particular political

positions and policies and see what we come up with.

Now, the Communist Party only allows for a one party state. What

about the Republican Party? Well, how can we tell? I guess we can tell

this by figuring out how the Republicans treat the rival Democrats. If the

Republican rhetoric is one which seems to suggest that Democrats have no

right to exist, rather than being collegial, then it would seem that the

Republicans are trying to get rid of the Democrats. Now, it is fairly obvious

that if there are two parties, one Democrat and one Republican, and you

take away one party, the Democrats, then you are left with one party, the

Republicans, or is it the Communists? The problem of course is that the

Nazis also believed in a one party state run by the Nazi party, so could it be

that the Republicans are really Nazis?

Now, you might object that the Republicans are not trying to destroy

the Democratic Party, but there are a few problems with that. Richard

Nixon, a Republican was perfectly happy to use former C.I.A. employees to

engage in political espionage against the Democrats during the Watergate


Also, Ronald Reagan was quite fond of saying that liberal

democrats are evil. Even Republican Catholic priests, giving homilies from

the alter to Catholic Democrats, had no problem calling liberal democrats

evil. It has gotten so bad that Archbishop George, presumably a republican,

has stated that liberalism is dead.

Now, the most interesting people out to destroy legal democracy are

the republican or is it communist or nazi, Critical Legal Studies professors

at Harvard Law School and elsewhere. In fact I have heard, first hand, a

Critical Law professor refer to liberalism as fascism. Now, if you

remember World War Two at all, you might recall that Mussolini, the

Italian Dictator was a fascist, and he was aligned with Adolph Hitler, a Nazi,

both totalitarians. The people who fought the fascist and Nazis were

American soldiers who believed in liberal democracy. The Critical Legal

Studies crowd are a bunch of cowards. They never fight for reforms for

justice and social justice that would help the poor or working poor or

middle class, instead they argue that the Rule of Law doesn’t exist, rights

don’t exist, instead these are “reified” concepts which are illegitimate.

Now, I have argued previously in a published academic work that

“reification” is an incoherent, false concept. Only one professor bothered

to respond and, the article was about his work, that is Peter Gabel. Since I

published that article in the Capital Law Review, I have come up with a

shorter proof, also previously published. Try this on for size:

“Reification is itself a reified concept, and therefore invalid.”

So, once again, how is it that Critical Legal Studies professors,

supposed radicals, spend all their time trashing liberal democracy using the

reification concept? Perhaps these Critical Legal Studies professors are

Republicans, or is Communists, or Nazi? Food for thought.

Chapter 20

Jesus and Commitment


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Unless you are really in the groove, it is hard to make a commitment.

Sometimes you have this intuitive feeling that you can commit to doing

something for a long time, maybe forever. Often times when we think of

commitment we think of a marriage commitment or a commitment to

religious life. There is a more fundamental commitment, however, that this

one’s commitment to God.

Everyone knows that if you believe in God you will have your ups

and downs, your good days and your bad days. Saint Ignatius of Loyola

saw this, and named these swings in spirituality consolation and desolation.

Even modern psychiatry has the ideas of manic inspiration or consolation,

and depressive desolation or depression or deep sadness. When one feels

God or the Spirit in one’s heart and soul then one is experiencing

consolation. When God or the Spirit seems absent then one is experiencing


Ignatius said, however, that even desolation can be a gift. In periods

of spiritual dryness or sadness it is typically the case that the soul is

undergoing some type of conversion. Although it may be that in some cases

medication is necessary to help overcome desolation or depression, with

good spiritual direction it is sometimes possible to ride out the situation and

transcend it. As Dr. Larry Dossey points out, the mind-body connection is

a two way street. The mind can affect the body and the body or medication

can affect the mind. Moreover, the mind can affect the mind.

To return to my earlier discussion here, I guess my point is that you

have learn to be patient with yourself and understand that however horrible

it may be at the time, it may be spiritually necessary for one’s inner growth

to experience some desolation or depression. You have to transcend the

depression or desolation, however, at keep at your goals and your life. You

simply have to gut it out and stick with your faith in God even though your

spiritual experience is total anguish.

Jesus was very outspoken in his criticism of those who “flip-flop.”

Flip-floppers are those who blow with the wind, Catholic one week,

Episcopalian the week after, atheist the next. Providentially, God can work

with us even when we are atheists or bigoted.

His plan may not be the one we like but nevertheless it is still a plan

that will work, providentially. Jesus said in the Christian Gospel, “I will

take them cold, I will take them hot, but the luke warm I will spit out of my

mouth.” So, while we should strive to be spiritual, loving, persons, and

love God, at the same time we must be careful not to be wishwashy. If we

change faith under persecution, severe persecution, then God can exercise

equity and forgive us. But if we change faith for reasons of selfishness, or

power, or greed, then God is not very forgiving. So, even in times of

difficulty do your best to stick with your faith. If you leave the faith for

what you see is a good reason, then don’t come back unless you really mean

it. Maybe it is better for you to try to make your new faith work. Don’t be

a Catholic one week and an Episcopalian the next week. Make a

commitment and God will work with you.

Chapter 21

Jesus Christ and the DaVinci Code


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the book and movie, the DaVinci Code, it is asserted that Jesus

of Nazareth was married to Mary Magnalene, and had a child, a daughter. I

want to argue for a more radical interpretation of the Gospels. I argue that

Jesus was a Jewish Lawyer, a member of the Sandedrin, on Mary his

Mother’s side, the grandson of Cleopatra (Anne) (Egypt) and Marc Antony

Caesar (Rome). I argue that Jesus was married to a woman of stature in the

community and had 5 children, both boys and girls. I argue that Jesus was

an establishment player up until his 40 th birthday, at which point he became

a social justice advocate. Jesus argued that slavery should be abolished.

He argued that all Jews should have Roman Citizenship. He argued that

there should be hospitals to take care of medical needs of the middle class

and poor. He argued against unjust taxation. As a result of all of this, Jesus

was penured by the Sandedrin, and disbarred from law practice. Jesus sent

his wife and children to Byzantium to be safe and then began his public

ministry as a prophet, healer, and preacher. Both the Jewish and Roman

authorities could take only so much of this and Jesus was crucified, died,

and was buried. Jesus rose from the dead, using his Quantum Abilities,

spent time with his disciples and then ascended into the sky, the heavens.

Jesus then flew bodily to the outskirts of Byzantium and rejoined his family,

with a change in identity, Joshua Zimmerman. Jesus made furniture part

time and practiced Roman Civil Law, having obtained Roman Citizenship.

He had 5 more biological children and stayed on earth for a long time.

The foregoing is my intuitive account of what really happened.

Chapter 22

Joseph the Father of Jesus


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Since I was a kid I always wondered a lot about Joseph, the earthly

Father of Jesus of Nazareth. It is clear that Joseph was around the house

during the early childhood of Jesus. Joseph and Mary have to get Jesus

back from the Temple where the young Jesus was debating theology and

philosophy with the Jewish elders. After this incident with the elders,

Joseph is seemingly no longer mentioned in the Gospel, although Mary is.

It is argued by some that Joseph died while Jesus was still young, and

thus the lack of discussion of Joseph in the Gospels. I would like to

propose another interpretation of the biblical data, I would like to argue that

Joseph, like Jesus after him, was subjected to persecution for the charge of

penury. Rather than stay in Nazareth and face persecution for penury, it is

my argument that Joseph left town and went to Jerusalem to start a new life.

I argue that later in the Gospel, Joseph reappears as Joseph of Arimethea.

Apparently, if one survives penuring, then one can become rich, as was

Joseph of Arimethea. Joseph of Arimethea was a disciple of Jesus, and

apparently was present at the crucifixion of Jesus, and later had enough clout

to ask Pilate for Jesus’ body, so that it could be buried in a tomb owned by

Joseph. Jesus was then buried in the tomb provided by Joseph of


So, I argue that Joseph did not abandon Jesus, but rather was

compelled to go to Jerusalem under the assumed name of Joseph of

Arimethea, rather than Joseph of Nazareth. Joseph was thus a follower

and supporter of Jesus, was present throughout the public ministry of Jesus,

and was with Jesus at his death on the Cross. I argue that Joseph was a

strong Father figure, and a positive influence in the life of Jesus.

Chapter 23



Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Christian Gospel, the Book of Matthew, Jesus tells the disciples

not to judge others harshly, that is, not to be judgmental, “For as you judge,

so you shall be judged, and the measure which you measure will be

measured out to you.” In this teaching, Jesus shows us that he is a

moderate relativist. Jesus does not deny that truth of some sort exists,

neither does Jesus assert that absolute truth exists, instead, he tells us that we

will be judged (an absolute) by the same standards we use to judge others (a

relative standard).

Jesus also says that the measure or standard you use to measure or

analyze others will be the same measure that is used to measure or analyze

you. Now, the situation is made even more interesting because of karma.

The law of Karma states that we will eventually be reciprocally placed in a

situation which parallels the situation that we have found others. If I am

rich and treat the poor well or poorly, I will eventually live a life where I will

be poor and will be treated well or poorly just as I treated the poor in this


Later in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells a parable about a man

who owed a debt to his King. Debtor A, was taken before the King and

was questioned. The man has no way to pay the debt. The King ordered

that Debtor A and his family be sold into slavery to pay the debt. Debtor A,

begged for mercy, and the King relented, forgiving the man’s debt. Debtor

A was on his way home, happy that his debt had been forgiven, when he

came upon another man, Debtor B, who owed him, the King’s debtor, a

small amount of money. The forgiven debtor, now creditor, Debtor A, had

the man, Debtor B, thrown into debtor’s prison. Soon, word got back to the

King as to what had happened. Following the teaching of Jesus, the King

applied the same judgment and measure to the King’s debtor, Debtor A, that

Debtor A has applied to Debtor B. Thus, the King handed the original

debtor, Debtor A, over to the torturers for punishment.

It is clear, then, that if Debtor A has given Debtor B additional time

to pay, or had forgiven the debt the same judgment would have been applied

to him, Debtor A, by the King, rather than torture. Torture obviously

symbolizes a kind of Hell. So, I argue that good judgment, tempered with

compassion is best, but that, now judgment at all is better than a sort of

vindictive judgmentalism, which is all some people are capable of since they

lack good judgment.

Chapter 24

Level Three Thinking


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Bernard Lonergan, in his work, discusses the Cognitional Structure

of Experience, Understanding, Judgment and Reflection. I would like to

take a few moments to develop Lonergan’s work using phenomenological


It is difficult to consider the level of Experience without at the same

time considering the Level of Understanding. The best idea that I have

come up with so far is to imagine that you are a one year old child who is

just learning to speak. You do not know the name of the various objects in

the room. In order to learn you are accompanied by a parent (or friend) and

you simply point at various objects in the room saying “That…” So, you

see a “lamp” and you point at it and say “That…” You see a picture on the

wall and you say “That…” You say that because you are trying to stay on

the level of Experience without going to the level of Understanding and

naming or categorizing the object with language.

On the Level of Understanding you take your sense experience and

try to categorize it. So, let us say you have pointed to an “apple” and an

“orange,” saying “That…” Now, let us say you point to the “apple” saying

“That…” and your friend then says “apple” to you to give you the name or

category that fits. Next, you do the same thing with “orange.”

You are now aware at the level of Understanding of the categories of

orange and apple. Next your friend tells you that both an apple and an

orange are fruit, while green beans are a vegetable. You now distinguish

apple from orange as two different types of fruit and analogize them as two

similar types of fruit. So, by analogy, apple is to orange as green beans are

to yellow beans. Similarly, you can analytically distinguish an apple from

an orange saying they are two different types of fruit. All of this is done on

the level of Understanding, at level 2.

Finally, there is Level 3 Judgment and Reflection. Both Judgment

and Reflection are Intuitive functions. Intuition, at a particular level of

probability directly intuits both the object “orange” as well as the ideal

“orange” of Level 2 which is a linguistic category. Intuition then tests the

two for a proper “fit,” and then Judges the orange to really be an orange.

Additionally, Intuition at level 3 Judges that the apple is not an orange and

that the orange is not an apple.

Thus, using phenomenological analysis it is apparent that

Lonergan’s Cognitional Structure is valid.

Chapter 25

Liberty and Liberalism


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

For some reason, Ronald Reagan started bashing liberalism and

in certain circles the idea of liberal bashing became popular. What is

liberalism? Well, if you look carefully, the word “liberalism” has the same

root, “liber” as the word “liberty.” Thus, liberals are persons who support

liberty. Now, who could be against liberty? That is, genuine freedom?

Well, fascists, I suppose. Those people who reject liberal, individual rights

in favor of evil, authoritarian rule. Why would anyone in their right mind

be against liberty?

I suppose that there once was a time when certain liberals, who were

logical positivists, felt that liberalism meant or means atheistic materialism.

This is no longer the case. With Critical Thomism, liberalism is now firmly

grounded in classical metaphysics. Liberty is an Immutable Platonic Form

and a Substantial Form. Liberty exists, and subsists, independent of any

knower. Liberty is real. And, for the liberal metaphysician it is no big deal

at all to move from aatheistic metaphysics to theistic metaphysics.

Aatheism, being the metaphysician’s agnostic approach to God. Agnostics

are still free to dream the dream of God, while atheists aren’t. Liberty is

worth fighting for. As Patrick Henry has stated around the time of the

American Revolution, “Give me Liberty or give me Death.”

Chapter 26

Mental Incompetency and the Equitable Use


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I once met a psychologist who asked me whether a person who

was adjudicated judicially incompetent to stand trial for a mental health

disability would have the right to practice law if the person was an

otherwise licensed attorney. I responded that such a mental health-legal

status was irrelevant as long as the person did not violate the Legal Ethics

rules in the requisite jurisdiction. An attempt by the Bar or Judiciary or

legislature to prevent some one from practicing law based on his status of

having a mental health disability would be a violation of the Federal

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Protection clause of the United

States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C.A. section 1983.

Now, another argument I have heard made is that a person who is

mentally ill and judicially incompetent to stand trial does not have the legal

capacity to own property or to contract. Once again this argument fails. I

argue that once a mentally ill person adjudicated judicially incompetent to

stand trial, that that person holds an equitable use in all of his or her property

and can contract in Equity under the theory of in Quantum Meruit, that is,

he can contract for the reasonable value of property or services, in Equity,

enforceable at Equity. Bare legal title at law, subject to the person’s

equitable use could be held by a guardian or by the attorney general in his

capacity of parens patria, that is, one who is responsible for representing to

best interest or rational self interest of minors or incompetents in Equity.

Obviously, a mentally ill person who is adjudicated judicially incompetent to

stand trial can contract in Equity with a Bank or a savings account or

checking account.

Now, the only counterargument that I can see to the position taken

above, is that the Statute of Uses, enacted by Parliament in 1538, would

apply. The Statute of Uses states that any equitable use is converted to a use

at law. Now, while this may seem to hurt the argument for a person holding

an equitable use, it really does not. What happens instead is that the

mentally ill person can hold a law license, practice law, contract at law, hold

title to property at law, hold a savings account at law, and hold a checking

account at law, instead of in Equity. If this is somehow challenged by a

Guardian or another, then the use at law reverts back to an Equitable Use,

and the Statute of Uses is inapplicable.

Chapter 27

Metaphysics and Quantum Physics, An Analogy


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

Plato and Aristotle both discuss the metaphysical concept of Being

in their academic works of philosophy. As I define Being, Being is an

unrestricted act of understanding, Form of Form, The Good. Being is

sometime thought to be like an Energy field, not unlike the idea of Ether

that 19th century scientists used. Some are skeptical about Being, arguing

that it does not exist. The typical response is that Being is the Unmoved

Mover, and as such is a necessary concept needed to avoid an illogical,

result of infinite regress.

Here, however, I would like to make a different argument for the

existence of Being. I argue that Being or the Being Field, is analogous to

the Quantum Field. The Quantum Field has been scientifically proven to

exist outside of Space-Time, and by analogy it can be argued that Being or

the Being Field, exists outside of Space-Time. Similarly, the Quantum

Field is said to involve meaning, and by analogy it can be argued that

Being or the Being Field involves meaning or understanding. The Quantum

Field is said to involve Moderate Relativism, and by analogy it can be

argued that Being or the Being Field involves Moderate Relativism.

Therefore, it appears that, arguing by analogy, an argument can be

made that Being does indeed exist.

Chapter 28

Motivation, Management, and Consciousness


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Abraham Maslow is famous for his theory of motivation. Maslow

asserts that there are five different levels of motivation for the person. They


1. Survival

2. Safety

3. Belonging

4. Esteem

5. Self-Actualization

Survival needs deal with basic physical needs such as food,

clothing, shelter. Safety needs involve freedom from harm and often

involve the use of law to protect one from harm and to protect one’s

freedom. Belonging needs are needs related to relationship and love such as

friendship, parent-child, marriage partners, etc. Esteem needs involve the

need for positive affirmation for a job well done. Finally, Self-

Actualization needs relate to the need to express your True Self, your Holy

Spirit Self, in a vocation.

Socially responsible management of a company must structure its

employment programs so that its employees are properly motivated. By the

way, just because one Self-Actualizes does not mean that there is no need

to be paid well for a job well done, for example. You are not required to

take a poverty vow in order to Self-Actualize. Self-Actualizing people still

have survival, safety, and esteem needs just as much as anyone else. Having

said this, however, it is also true that Self-Actualizing people are willing to

take risks in order to find work which is Self-Actualizing, sometimes putting

up with the inconvenience of lower pay. Ideally, the Self-Actualizing

person desires a job which promotes his or her Self-Actualization and which

pays well. Self-Actualizing people hate high paying jobs which do not

promote Self-Actualization. When forced into such a situation the Self-

Actualizing person typically is very unhappy.

Chapter 29

Neuro-linguistic Programming and Schizophrenia


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I would like to suggest a new profession for lawyers who hold a Juris

Doctor degree, that is Jurisprudential Counseling. What is Jurisprudential

Counseling? Well, Jurisprudence, real Jurisprudence is interdisciplinary. It

involves philosophy, theology, quantum physics, psychology, psychiatry,

even neuro-linguistic programming. It is Wisdom.

As a Jurisprudential Counselor, for example, I argue that some forms

of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia, can be cured using neuro-

linguistic programming or neuro-heuristic programming. The argument is

that mental illness is caused by faulty cognitive programming, not by

biology or chemistry.

Schizophrenia, is defined as a thought disorder. Some

schizophrenics have a hard time being logical. I argue that by putting the

patient in a deep trance state using neuro-linguistic programming, or

mediation relaxation, that one can discover the unconscious roots of

schizophrenia and other mental illnesses and cure them.

I have to examples that have been used successfully. In the first case

the patient was suffering from severe depression. The patient was given the

neuro-linguistic “double bind” command “I find pleasure in depression.”

The patient experienced substantial relief from depression.

In the second instance, the patient had the subjective experience of

“reality” shifting in his mind periodically. The patient was given the neuro-

heuristic command taken from Neo-Thomist philosophy, of “substantial

form,” and was told to meditate with this. The patient experienced dramatic

relief from the reality shifting phenomenon.

Since psychiatry seems unable to get beyond atheistic materialism

in it’s approach to treating mental health problems, I suggest that lawyers

engaging in Jurisprudential Counseling, take the lead.

Chapter 30

Part Time Full Time Work


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have heard in Germany that they are going to a part time work

week for everyone, required by law. In the United States there is, for some

reason, the rather idiotic idea that if you do not work a 40 hour work week,

or longer, that you are somehow mentally ill. In fact, in some law firms,

attorneys work 80 hour work weeks. I know of one guy who worked in a

big firm who supposedly was pulling down a big salary, and, do you know

what? When you looked at the huge amount of hours he was required to

work and divided that by his salary, you found out that he was only making

around $5.50 an hour, about minimum wage at that time. It is completely

absurd that a person goes to school for four years undergraduate studies,

three years of law school, and then ends up making the same hourly rate as a

kid right out of highschool who is sacking groceries at the local grocery


But the problem is even deeper than what I have discussed.

Somehow we have found ourselves in a workaholic culture. It is so bad

that some lawyers will even brag that they missed their son’s baseball game

because they were putting in hard hitting hours. It is sad. I argue that the

normal work schedule for a human being, especially on doing intellectual

work, should be around 20 hours per week or less. Intellectual people

perform best in an environment where there is little stress. Long hours

produces stress. Long hours and stress produces mistakes.

Human beings evolved from tribal culture. In tribal culture the male

spent most of his time at home relaxing or doing odd jobs such as repairing a

bow or sharpening an arrowhead. Work was hunting. If the tribe lived in

the right area a warrior hunter might go out and hunt for two or three hours

once every two or three days, and that was it.

In medieval culture it was the same way. People were layed back.

They took time to talk to each other and took rest breaks. There was

typically one religious holiday a week where no one was allowed to work.

Most jobs were part time.

Finally, in science fiction and in the new age literature there are

discussions of highly evolved societies on other planets. In these societies

people work part time. Part time is full time. Part time pays full time. If in

a law firm for example, the senior partners would accept a sensible salary

cap in instead of maxing out profit, then the money saved could be

distributed throughout the firm and everyone could work fewer hours.

In my own case, I worked at a large law firm for two years and then

left to go into the Jesuit Novitiate. For me, full time legal practice was not a

satisfying lifestyle. I left the Novitiate and went into legal academia. As a

law professor I had flexible hours and could excel. Because I was not

required to work a 40 hour week in the office I could spend time at home

reading or meditating or later spend time with my kids. While some people

took 4 hours to prepare for a one hour class, it took me just 45 minutes to

prepare once I had taught the class a few times.

Now I work part time as an attorney and I write. I am basically poor.

I am saving money to buy a car. I enjoy my law practice, but I know I

could never do it full time. I live in a one bedroom apartment by myself.

Even though I do not make much money I am basically happy. I like my

clients. I have basically a street law plaintiff’s practice. I have time to

meditate and to write. Although Divine Providence dealt me this hand, it is

working out just fine. I suggest part time full time work for everyone.

Chapter 31



Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have a sociological hypothesis. I argue that penuring is a universal,

natural law, sociological phenomenon. Penury, in its’ strict meaning,

according to Black’s Law Dictionary, means “poverty.” However, penury

as has a double meaning in the word penior, or point, or dagger. As a

universal phenomenon, I argue that when a male reaches the age of

approximately 40 years old, and is married with children, reality reacts

against this person my penuring him. Penury may also apply to a woman,

but I think the process is somewhat different. With respect to the male,

penury can mean either withdrawl to a life of relative seclusion and poverty,

that is, simple living, or in the extreme to the torture or execution or

assassination of the male by society, traditionally through having the throat

slit or being stabbed, or crucified. In modern times, the assassin’s bullet

seems to be the typical method of penuring a male. Alternatively, a live of

enforced poverty by reason of the male being “framed” and put in prison or

a psychiatric ward is also a possibility. Lastly, poisoning of the victim of

penury is another technique.

Now, penury, as a process, is made more intense when the male is a

spiritual person, a “good” person, or a person who believes in justice or

social justice. The natural cause of penury is twofold. First, stemming

from ancient culture, when a male reaches the age of 40 it is unconsciously,

and perhaps consciously thought that he is using supernatural means to stay

alive. It is speculated that the male is an immortal. A male in good health

in his late 40’s is a target for penury. Arguably, his health should be failing,

but it is not. The inauthentic way of avoiding penury is to join a satanic cult

and worship conventional evil. The authentic way of avoiding penury is

more complex and will be discussed below.

The second natural cause of penury is the phenomenon of

ressentiment. Ressentiment, according to Bernard Lonergan, is the

personal and societal reaction of hatred and jealously against a person who

argues for and lives a life of, higher values. So, I argue that history has

shown that men who live lives arguing for justice and social justice are

penured. Examples include, Jesus Christ (state execution by crucifixion),

Thomas More (executed by beheading), William Wallace (state execution

by being hung, drawn, and quartered), Abraham Lincoln (assassinated),

Ghandi (assassinated), Jack Kennedy (assassinated), Bobby Kennedy

(assassinated), Martin Luther King, Jr., (assassinated). In my own life, I

argue that I have been penured, although I will not go into the details here.

Now, let us talk about the ways of avoiding penury. First of all, if

one’s skin is literally pierced by a needle or a knife, then this counts as a

technical penuring. I suspect that the medieval practice of self flagellation

with a barbed whip was a form of self penuring to avoid something worse.

Namely, crucifixion or being burned alive for heresy. A second technique is

retirement to a monastery or the equivalent thereof. I argue this is a

universal phenomenon. In India, if a spiritual male is married, this is called

the way of the householder. Upon reaching age 40 the houselholder is

expected to leave his home and live the rest of his life in an ashram or

monastery. Curiously, I, personally, was forced to leave my home of my

wife and two children, and now live in a one bedroom apartment in a

different city. Perhaps the reason that there are so many divorces in the 40

year old age bracket is because of the penuring phenomenon.

If the spiritual male seeking justice and social justice does not retire to

a life of seperateness, simple living, and partial seclusion, then it is likely

that he will be penured. As stated before, penury can include: being framed

and put in prison on false charges; being framed and executed by the state;

being burned or crucified by the mob or Klu Klux Klan; being hit or

murdered by the mafia; being poisoned; being assassinated, being

involuntarily committed to a psychiatric ward.

I, of course, hope that I am completely wrong about about the

hypothesis that I have presented here, but I do not think that I am.

Chapter 32

Persecution and Commitment


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

When we make a commitment to God we are expected to stick

with it. Traditionally, those who reject God, after having accepted or

believed in Him were thought to be apostates and condemned to Hell. In

ordinary times when the Church is functioning the way it should, and so is

society, it is typically not very difficult for most people to maintain their

religious faith. It is perhaps the most difficult test for many during

ordinary times when a loved one dies unexpectedly. This often produces a

crisis of faith because we miss the person so much.

Not all times are ordinary, however. Through much of the

history of the Catholic church, Catholics have been subject to persecution by

those of other religious backgrounds. In fact, it is simply the case that

Catholics are sometimes tortured in an effort to get them to give up their


For example, during the time of the Crusades, when Catholic

Knights were captured by Moslems, the Knights were often tortured to force

them to give up their faith and become Christian apostates. Similarly,

during the reign of Queen Elizebeth the 1st of England, Catholic priests

who were captured were typically tortured and executed, often by being

hung, drawn, and quartered.

The reason that many Catholics went to their deaths under torture

was the official policy of the Church was that there was never an excuse for

apostacy. If you were tortured you were expected to resist until death and

become a martyr rather than to deny your faith under persecution.

There is a new rule, now, however. Now, it is my position, that it is

acceptable to retain an internal reservation in favor of one’s faith and to

outwardly reject your faith rather than submit to extreme persecution or

torture. You remain Catholic internally, and as soon as reality has

normalized, then you go back to being a professed Catholic again. In the

present day church God chooses survivability over martyrdom. However, it

should be noted that minor name calling or other such minor forms of

persecution are not sufficient for rejected one’s faith.

Chapter 33

Psychiatry and Malpractice


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The legal standard for malpractice is negligence. A Psychiatrist,

as any other Doctor, has the legal duty to act reasonably when treating a

patient. Unreasonable conduct on the part of the Psychiatrist breaches the

duty of care and is actionable as negligence for which damages should be


There is a whole new generation of atypical anti-psychotic

medications which have minimal side effects. Both Geodon and Seroquel,

given in the proper dosages are effective in treating schizophrenia, shizo-

affective disorder, and bipolar disorder (manic depression), and have been

approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for those uses.

Unfortunately, some Psychiatrists seem to be following the

antiquated practice of prescribing the oldest known medication first, which

typically has significant side effects. For example, if a patient is placed on a

psychiatric ward based on alleged delusional thinking or hallucinations,

many psychiatrists prescribe haldiperol or haldol as the first line of treatment

even though haldol has significant side effects. Instead, the competent

psychiatrist would start with Geodon or Seroquel, the most effective drug,

with the least amount of side effects.

Similarly, with bipolar disorder (manic depression), many

psychiatrists start with lithium as the first treatment, and then go to depakote

(valproic acid) even though both of these medications have significant side

effects. Instead, the competent psychiatrist would start with Geodon or

Seroquel, the most effective drug with the least amount of side effects.

Psychiatry must change. The most effective medications with the

least amount of side effects must be prescribed first. If the psychiatrists

won’t do this voluntarily then the legal system will have to put them out of

business using malpractice tort law, if the government won’t intervene.

This Essay is based upon my legal opinion as legal academic involved in

the area of law and psychiatry.

Chapter 34

Psychiatry and the First Amendment

To the United States Constitution


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

It is interesting to note that most professions are licensed by the

state and regulated. This is true of law as well as medicine, including

psychiatry. I would like to argue that medicine in general, as well as law,

constitute private action for constitutional purposes. In law, in particular, a

lawyer is an “officer of the court” only for the limited purpose of disclosing

perjury by a client. Only lawyers whose practices involve state action for

constitutional purposes are those lawyers who work for government directly,

such as a United State Attorney, the local prosecutor, the head or counsel of

an administrative agency.

Psychiatry, however, is a different story. Psychiatrists, directly or

indirectly, have the power of involuntarily committing a person to a

psychiatric ward for a long period time, and a psychiatrist also has the power

to force a client to take psychiatric medication. The only reason that a

psychiatrist has this power is because of state statute. Force of state law

and state coercion give psychiatrist power, and thus political power, even,

religious power.

Now, when we understand that a psychiatrist operates under the

umbrella of state action, it is apparent that certain legal rules come into play.

First of all, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states

specifically that there can be no state sponsored established church. The

First Amendment also provides that persons are to have the free exercise of

religion and spirituality, which cannot be interfered with by the state.

Finally, 42 United States Code Annotated Section 1983 provides both civil

and criminal penalties for a psychiatrist who infringes upon a client’s

constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights, under the color of

state law.

Let us consider the following hypothetical. Twenty five year old,

Bill, tells his psychiatrist that he “feels the Holy Spirit in my Heart,” and

also feels inspired by Saint Francis of Assisi to give all his property away to

the poor and go into religious life in order to serve others. Bill’s

psychiatrist, at the suggestion of Bill’s parents, diagnoses Bill with manic

depression and involuntarily commits Bill to a psychiatric ward. On the

ward, Bill reaffirms his previous religious ideals and his psychiatrist

reaffirms Bill’s diagnosis on manic depression and decides that Bill is

delusional as a result of religious mania. Without knowing it, Bill’s

psychiatrist has violated both the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. Section


Here is the argument. Bill’s intention to sell his property and go into

religious life involves the free exercise of religion for purposes of the First

Amendment. United State Supreme Court precedent states that the state

can only interfere with constitutional rights if there is a compelling state

interest, and if the means used to further that interest are narrowly drawn to

accomplish an important governmental objective.

Now, the typical involuntary commitment statute states that a person

can be involuntarily committed if he or she is a immediate physical danger

to himself or another. This would seem to be the only legitimate state

objective. Is this a compelling state interest? Is the requirement narrowly

drawn to accomplish an important governmental objective? It would seem

that saving the life of either Bill or a third person would be a compelling

state interest, but, the problem is that Bill is simply planning to sell his

property and go into religious life. Bill is not really planning to hurt

anyone. I suppose that it is remotely possible that Bill might starve to

death if he sells everything and is then kicked out of religious life. If this

is indeed the concern, the state can only intervene in a narrow way to

prevent this possibility from happening. This can be done by asking or even

requiring Bill to place his property in a Trust until Bill has taken final vows

in religious life, or perhaps, has died.

So, condsidering the foregoing, the psychiatrist should not

involuntarily commit Bill, but instead should seek legal means to have Bill’s

property placed in Trust for Bill’s benefit. Involuntarily commiting a

person in Bill’s situation violates both the First Amendment and 42

U.S.C.A. Section 1983. The wise psychiatrist would seem to want to

avoid the type of legal penalties associated with Section 1983. The same is

true of a police officer acting in a similar capacity.

Chapter 35

Psychotic Psychiatry


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

It used to be that philosophy or perhaps natural science were

considered to be the disciplines most concerned with truth. Now, however,

psychiatry is attempting to steal the stage. Psychiatry purports to be able to

recognize that which is psychotic; psychotic being defined as “out of touch

with reality.” The corollary of the foregoing, is, of course, that psychiatry

must know what “reality” is in order to be able to distinguish it from non-


The problem is that psychiatry itself is totally out of touch with reality

since it typically uses conventional morality and atheistic materialism as

normative. It has gotten so bad that some psychiatrists think that

metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality, is delusional or psychotic.

Here is the best though. Do you know that if you tell a psychiatrist

anything which he or she thinks is out of the ordinary that you will in all

likelihood be diagnosed delusional or psychotic? Take this for example. It

is well known that the Mafia is active in the Kansas City area. I grew up in

Nebraska and this was generally understood as being true. Let us say

however, that I grew up and got a job in Kansas City and I was being

rousted out of my job with no explanation. Let us also assume that I have

been previously diagnosed as having Bipolar mental illness. I go to my

psychiatrist and tell him that I suspect that I am being rousted in my job

because I won’t pay protection or join the mafia. My psychiatrist, having

grown up in Pakistan, immediately assumes I am delusional and diagnoses

me with Schizophrenia without bothering to investigate the underlying facts.

Now, it is painfully obvious that every psychiatrist should employ a

private detective to check out the underlying facts of the patient’s story. In

point of fact people do get persecuted by not only the mafia, but also the

F.B.I. and the C.I.A. It is so obvious because it is in the newspaper. For

example, the local newspaper in Pittsburgh, PA, published a story about the

new C.I.A. station chief in Pittsburgh. Now, this is interesting because at

the last time that I checked, 50 U.S.C.S. section 401, et seq., known as the

National Security Act, prohibits the C.I.A. from spying domestically in the

United States.. I think that it is a felony under federal law. Under the

National Security Act, the National Counter Intelligence Agency (N.C.A.)

is responsible for domestic spying.

Now, back to psychiatry. How about this for an interesting move?

Joe Smith discovers that his wife is planning to run him in onto a psychiatric

ward for treatment. She is keeping a careful list of all of Joe’s behaviours so

that she can give this to the psychiatrist. Joe discovers the list and decides

to get a crew cut, hair cut and grow a beard so that his cannot be accused of

having cognitive dementia. Joe’s wife proceeds with her plan anyway.

The next month she has Joe involuntarily committed on a psychiatric

ward for not combing his hair or shaving. Of course Joe does not need to

shave because he has grown a beard, and, Joe does not need to comb his hair

because he has a short crew cut, hair cut. Although this is perfectly absurd,

I suspect it happens fairly often. Think about it.

Chapter 36



Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Nature of Reality is difficult to grasp. Some, naively, think

that they know reality first hand, without reflection. Others simply ignore

the question, perhaps even denying that reality exists. At the deepest point

in existence reality is Substance. Substance is the reality principle or

quiddity par excellence. Realists start with Substance and finish with


Idealists on the other hand start with the idea of idea. For an

idealist the explanatory principle is Idea. In fact, this is so true that an

Idealist will even insist that Idea is the basis for the real. For the Idealist,

Reality is based on ideas. The problem, of course, is that ideas are not real,

they are abstract, almost imaginary. In fact, we even have full books full of

imaginary ideas which are called fiction. So, this seems to be a problem

for the Idealist.

Linguistic Deconstruction is also a problem for the Idealist.

Deconstructionists spend a great deal of time trying to break down Ideas or

words into meaning categories which may or may not have anything to do

with a word’s dictionary definition. Let us take Liberty, as an idea, for

example. Liberty is based upon the idea of Freedom. The idea of Liberty

is that I should have that amount of Freedom which is coextensive with a

similar amount of Freedom for others. So, my Freedom to practice

boxing stops with your nose. To some, however, Liberty is simply

deconstructed and seen as anti-social selfishness, denying “relationality.”

Perhaps, even the idea of idea itself can be deconstructed. What is

an idea but a word? What is word but a cultural convention? Aren’t all

cultural conventions relative and contingent, and therefore unreliable?

Thus, Idealism as the basis for reality just does not work.

On the other hand, it must be noted that ideas do affect reality. The

ideas contained in an architectural blueprint, for example, show a plan for

the real construction of a building. Instructions in prefabricated book shelf

kits help us to assemble the book shelves, making them real, not just an idea.

Also, it should be noted that from a Critical Thomist or Critical Realist

perspective, ideas can be considered real. However, real ideas have

substance and are not mere accidents or illiterations. So, I argue that the

realism of Critical Thomism or Critical Realism works, while idealism

does not.

Chapter 37

Self-Actualization and Work


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Industrial Psychologist, Abraham Maslow, asserts that the highest

level of human motivation to work is that of Self-Actualization. As I have

argued elsewhere, the Self of Rational Self Interest, and Self Reflection is in

fact the True Self of the Holy Spirit in the heart and mind of the individual

person, which is, at once, both truly the person in the deepest sense and is

also the Holy Spirit. It is this same Self which is the Self of Self-


A Self-Actualizing person is motivated by the Self to a particular

vocation in life, whether, artist, doctor, priest, lawyer, carpenter, or plumber.

The person Self-Actualizes by being the best the person can be in

performing his or her Self-actualized work or vocation. As Maslow puts it,

“Salvation is a By-Product of Self-Actualizing Work and Self-Actualizing

Duty.” (Maslow, Abraham, Maslow on Management 9 (1998). Self-

Actualization “resolves the dichotomy between selfish and unselfish.” Id.

This is because the person, by the power of the Holy Spirit, selfishly pursues

a vocation which helps others, whether doctor, lawyer, priest, or plumber.

Further, “self-actualization work transcends the [ego] without trying to, and

achieves the kind of loss of [ego-consciousness] that” eastern philosophy

such as Zen, seeks to attain. Id.

So, the Holy Spirit, in a positive way, encourages us to selfishly

pursue our vocation and Self-Actualization. In using such selfishness, we

paradoxically help others. So for example, I love to write and to practice

law. I am doing both now, each part time. I believe that I have a vocation

to be both an author and an attorney. I love doing both, and, I Self-

Actualize doing both. I find my True Self, practicing law and writing.

Most of my clients are poor, or working poor, or on disability, and I

enjoy helping them solve their problems. When I was a law professor,

teaching, we used to discuss what it meant to be a lawyer. I agree with the

position that a lawyer is primarily a problem solver. The client comes to

you with a problem and it is up to you, the lawyer, to try to solve it, and,

hopefully make enough to pay your grocery bill and your book bill. (As an

author I buy books online to get background information for my writing. I

usually buy used books on Borders or Alibris).

The trick is to find your vocation. I suppose that some of these

standardized tests might help or maybe reading novels about people in

particular lines of work. You have to have the faith, that somehow,

someway that if you follow your vocation, you will be able to make ends

meet financially, and will have a fulfilling job or career.

Chapter 38

Sensory Deprivation and Psychiatry


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

If one happens to be a well read person, one has encountered the

concept of “sensory deprivation.” Sensory deprivation is a kind of torture

used to break the will of the person or to cause the person to have a nervous

breakdown or hallucinate. A classical example of sensory deprivation is in

a prisoner of war camp where prisoners are place in “the hole” or “the

cage” or “the cooler.” Similarly, in ordinary civilian prisons, “solitary

confinement” is used to torture or punish prisoners who disobey authority.

Perhaps the most common form of sensory deprivation in our

country is found in a psychiatric ward. Patients often spend most of their

days in a day room with no distraction other than a television set which play

bland crap. Visits from family or friends are often not very often. I suspect

that if a normal person ended up on a psychiatric ward that he or she would

soon become psychotic because of sensory deprivation. Perhaps it is too

much to say that patient’s are being tortured, but in the end it may be that the

result is the same.

Chapter 39

The Active and the Contemplative Life


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 182, Thomas Aquinas

discusses and contrasts the Active Life with the Contemplative Life.

Aquinas argues that Practical Reason is ordered toward the Active Life,

while Higher Reason is ordered toward the Contemplative Life. Aquinas

also argues that the Active Life helps to bring balance to the Contemplative


I argue that Level 3, Judgment and Reflection is the Practical Reason

that Aquinas refers to. Level 4, Formal Operations, on the other hand is a

first move toward a higher type of reason. While Practical Reason tends to

be adaptive, formal operations are a type of abstract reason which is in some

sense transcendent.

The real transcendent Higher Reason, however, if found at Level 8,

which is the Logos, Reason, Creative Form level of consciousness. Level 8

Reason integrates Level 7 Higher Love and Level 6 Intuition. Higher

Reason at Level 8 is not adaptive, but rather is transcendent. Level 8

reasoning focuses on Higher Values and transcendent abstraction. The

Insights found at Level 8 transcend those insights found at levels 3 and 4.

Without Level 8, Reason, for example, I doubt that we would know anything

about Euclidean Geometry or Newtownian Calculus, both very abstract


Finally, it should be noted that I argue that the Highest Level of

Understanding is the Wisdom found at Level 11 of consciousness. Level 11

Wisdom is alinear, arational, fractal, knowledge which involves a higher

degree of complexity than Logos Reason. Level 11 Wisdom brings one

“back to earth” in a different way.

Chapter 40

The Dao and Jesus


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In the book, The Tao of Jesus, Joseph Loya, et. al., discuss

both a saying of Lao Tzu and a saying of Jesus regarding social justice.

Although the Daoist verses by Lao Tzu are more abstract, still they are


The Tao of Heaven is comparable to an outstretched bow:

When high, lower it;

When low, raise it;

When excessive, reduce it;

When deficient, supplement it.

The Tao of Heaven reduces what is excessive,

Supplements what is deficient….

(Tao Te Ching, 77)

Interestingly, Lao Tzu seems to come to the same conclusion as

Aristotle. Aristotle argues that the Good is found in moderation. Lao Tzu

argues that the Tao, or the Good, is found in supplementing that which is

deficient, and reducing that which is excessive. With respect to wealth, it is

obvious that Lao Tzu and Aristotle both argue for moderation. Excessive

wealth should be reduced and deficient wealth should be supplemented.

Similarly, Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, says:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because he has anointed me

to bring glad tidings to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives

and recovery of sight to the blind,

and let the oppressed go free,

and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.

(Luke 4, 18-19).

Thus, Jesus asserts that the poor and the mentally ill are to be

liberated. Those imprisoned unjustly and inhumanely are to be set free.

The rich are to help the poor, either through direct financial help or by

investing in programs and business that will provide services to the poor, or

employ the poor. The same is true of the Poor in Spirit, the mentally ill. It

is immoderate and excessive for the rich to selfishly keep their money and

spend it on luxury goods. As Jesus says, it is easier for a camel to pass

through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of


Chapter 41

The Lineage of Jesus Christ


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

There has been much speculation about the lineage of Jesus Christ. I

argue that Jesus of Nazareth, is, and was, the Logos, the First Cause. I

argue that the First Cause is Multidimensional and so that those who are one

in Christ can themselves become a First Cause. I also argue that Jesus was,

and is, the Quantum Jesus. Jesus was, and is, One with the Quantum Field.

I argue that Jesus, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, Fathered himself,

biologically, with Mary as his Virigin Mother. Jesus came into the womb of

Mary as a Quantum Field and then manifested materially as male sperm and

impregnated Mary as a Virgin. I also argue that the template Jesus used for

his sperm was that of Joseph, his adopted father, and that Jesus took on the

genetic characteristics of his cousin, St. Jude, Thomas Judeas, Thomas

Didimous, Saint Thomas the Apostle, Doubting Thomas. Jesus was the

genetic twin of his cousin Thomas Judeas. The two were boyhood friends.

Chapter 42

The Equitable Use and Landlord Tenant Law


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

An Equitable Use is an equitable possessory interest which is

enforceable in Equity and not at law. An equitable use is only enforceable at

law by reason of the Statute of Uses as a legal use.

Law courts have legal rules which begin conceptual with legal

rights, Equity courts have equitable rules which begin with the concept of

need. Equity favors the one in need. Equity favors the poor, the elderly,

incompetents, and minors. Equity begins with the pagan philosophy of

Aristotle and then matures in the church Equity courts of the late medieval

period, especially in England.

An Equitable use gives a person the equitable right of owning

property and contracting in Equity. Since all courts of general jurisdiction

have both law and equity jurisdiction, and equitable use can be enforced in a

trial court such as a District Court or a Common Pleas Court, and on appeal.

By reason of Natural Law, every Court of General Jurisdiction has Equity

jurisdiction and can grant equitable relief.

Since an Equitable use in a car, for example is enforceable in Equity,

it is true that a person who steals a car owned by Equitable use can be

criminally prosecuted for stealing equitable property. Similarly, one can

hold an equitable use in personal property such as a copyright, and an

infringement of that right in equity constitutes both a civil and criminal

offense. Minors and incompetents can hold and own property as an

equitable use.

Additionally, it should be noted that a minor or incompetent can

own property in equity even in the absence of an equitable use. Common

Stock, for example is an equitable interest, and thus a minor or incompetent

can own Common Stock in a Corporation in his or her own name.

To form an Equitable use one must have a bare Legal title at law

vested in another person, whether alive or a corporation. In theory, there is

nothing to prevent an incompetent from forming a closely held corporation

and owning the corporation through equity Common Stock shares and then

having the bare Legal title at law of the incompetent conveyed to the closely

held Corporation.

Bare Legal title at law subject to an Equitable use is analogous in

some ways to the landlord tenant relationship. Recall that in a landlord

tenant relationship the land lord holds bare legal title at law subject to the

tenant’s possessory interest in Equity. The only reason that tenant was not

given more protection in Equity courts was that in the medieval system

economics favored tenants as the dominant party rather than landlords.

Similar to the landlord tenant relationship, the holder of a bare

Legal title at law is subject to the possessory interest in equity of the holder

of the Equitable use. Just as a tenant can assisgn or sublease a possessory

interest in a tenancy, so too can the holder of an equitable use sell, gift, or

dispose of in any way he or she wants the property held in and as an

equitable use, without the interference of the bare Legal title holder at law.

The only right and duty of a bare legal title holder at law is to defend that

bare legal Title at law against third parties, and to defend the equitable use

against third parties.

For the most helpful discussion of the Equitable use and the Statute

of Uses, see, Moynihan and Kurtz, Introduction to the Law of Real

Property (2002).

Chapter 43

The Gates of Hell

An Allegory


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Once upon a time, it was known that if you did horrible things to

people in your life on Earth, you would go to Hell in the afterlife. By the

end of the Middle Ages, however, there were so many people in Hell that it

as beginning to get crowded. About this time, certain scientists and apostate

philosophers got together and decided that there was a way out. They

decided to create a whole new world view called atheistic materialism and a

philosophy to back it up, called logical positivism.

These demonic souls went to Satan and said, “Listen we don’t even

believe in God, so God should not be able judge us. Also, we believe in life

on planets other than earth and the Bible does not recognize this, so under

the Universal system we should be entitled to leave Hell and go to other

planets since the system here only applies to Earth. Satan agreed and freed

10 million demonic souls to colonize other planets as Aliens.

Soon the Demonic Souls found hominid races who were very close

to being Earth Human on other planets. They ensouled the children of

those hominids are gradually took control of those planets, with the demonic

souls losing their human nature. Since they were no longer human, they

and others, took the position that they were not subject to God’s law and

God’s judgment.

For thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years these

Demonic Aliens did everything they could to develop space craft which

could travel faster than time and take them to Earth during the time of

Christianity. They are here, on Earth, even now, doing everything they can

to destroy us, especially Catholics and Christians who originally put them in

Hell for their evil deeds.

(This should be a movie in Holly wood).


Chapter 44

The Good and the Common Good


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Plato argued that the end of man, both as an individual and as a

society, was the Good. Aristotle, on the other hand argued for the Common

Good as did Thomas Aquinas. In the Treatise on Law, in the Summa

Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argued that the end of law is the common

good. I argue that Plato was right and that the end of law is the Good.

In theory, the common good means something more than just the view

of a conventional majority. Unfortunately, with extreme relativism the

tendency is to interpret the common good not as a heuristic or a principle or

a metaphysical quiddity, but instead to interpret the common good as a

conventional majority.

It is clear that the Good does not represent the will of a conventional

majority. The Good is defined as the Truly Worthwhile. In the first instance

the Truly Worthwhile means that the scale of values of all participants in

society is assumed to begin with Rational Self Interest, and the to proceed

with Autonomy as fundamental values. Rationality implies the use of

Logic. The Self is the True Self, where deep in one’s heart one is at once

both oneself and God, the True Self is me, as the Holy Spirit in me. It is the

True Self in my heart that I follow.

Autonomy means Self directed. An autonomous person is one who

follows the Self in him or her. A Self directed person chooses to voluntarily,

and creatively help others. An autonomous person rejects authority as

invalid. Reason is the only authority, not some authoritarian person. The

autonomy of all persons must be promoted. This means the provision of

meaningful work in a well ordered society that works. It is assumed that if

a person pursues Rational Self Interest and Autonomy, that that person will

choose rationally, Constitutional Democracy, individual rights, a regulated

economy, and a right to self defense.


Bernard Lonergan, Insight

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

Chapter 45

The Individual Good, Autonomy, and Individual Ethics


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Plato argued that the end of man, both as an individual and as a

society, was the Good. Aristotle, on the other hand argued for the Common

Good as did Thomas Aquinas. In the Treatise on Law, in the Summa

Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argued that the end of law is the common

good. I argue that Plato was right and that the end of law is the Good.

The problem, is, however, that some people tend to conflate the Good

with the Common Good. For those using conventional morality, the only

Good is the Common Good. So, to clarify, I argue that the Good is an

Individual Good. The Individual Good starts with you (or me) the

individual person and works outward from there. The Greatest Good is my

Rational Self Interest. The second Greatest Good is my Autonomy. The

third Greatest Good is my use of the ethics of the Ethical Matrix.

Now it may appear that in choosing the Individual Good that I am

being egoistic and selfish. This, however, is not the case. The Self, of my

Rational Self Interest, is, the True me, The True Tony, and, at the same time,

the Holy Spirit in me. This is a type of Spirit Mysticism. My True Self is

totally and completely me and totally and completely God, at the same time.

So, for John Doe, for example, his True Self is the True John, in him, and at

the same time, the Holy Spirit, in him.

The Common Good, on the other hand, can only be pursued with

caution. Unfortunately, the Common Good is typically interpreted as a

matter of Conventional Morality, based upon inauthentic authority, not upon

some type of metaphysical Good.

Autonomy is similar to Rational Self Interest. Literally, Autonomy

means to be Self Directed. Once again the True Self of Autonomous Self

Direction is both simultaneously the True me, and the Holy Spirit. In this

sense I can be Selfish and ethical but not selfish and ethical.

This leads to the final notion, ethics over conventional morality.

I argue that morality must give way to individual ethics. The ethical

principles of Reciprocity, Utility, Proportionality, and Equity found in the

Ethical Matrix should control.

Chapter 46

The Inquisition is Unconstitutional


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Inquisition is Unconstitutional. What is the Inquisition? The

Inquisition is a judicial proceeding where the Judge runs the proceeding and

there is no need for a plaintiff’s attorney or a prosecutor. Even the attorney

for the defendant is not allowed to fully participate.

The Inquisition is a total denial of Procedural Due Process. For

example, let us say that the Inquisition is being used in a criminal case and

the defense attorney files a motion to exclude certain evidence because it

was unconstitutionally obtained. A judge who was sitting as the Inquisition

clearly would have a conflict of interest in deciding the motion. The judge

is essentially both the prosecutor and the judge and thus has an interest in

allowing the the arguably unconstitutionally gathered evidence to be

admitted. This conflict arises with every motion or objection that he

defense might file or raise. If nothing else, the conflict of interest problem

renders the Iquisition unconstitutional.

Additionally, the 7th Amendment to the United States Constitution

guarantees a jury trial in all civil cases involving the common law. I argue

that the Inquistion is based upon and follows the common law. Therefore,

the Inquistion is invalid since the judge cannot replace the jury.

Finally, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Fuentes v.

Shevin, cited Magna Carta, the British Constitution with approval. I argue

that Magna Carta is applicable in the United States as a common law

provision, if not a Constitutional one. Magna Carta, which was enacted in

approximately the year 1215, long before the Spanish Inquisition became

active, provides that a person cannot be disposed of life, liberty, or property

with a trial based upon due process or a jury of one’s peers. Due process,

as the “law of the land,” is basically based upon Natural Law and cannot be

abrogated by the courts or the legislature . Magna Carta means the end of

the Inquistion in the United States. Additionally, a person cannot be exiled

without due process and a Magna Carta jury. I argue that every United

States citizen is entitled to a trial with due process and a trial by one’s peers,

as one chooses them, under Magna Carta.

Chapter 47

The Material World


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

In a Song, the singer Madonna talks about being a “Material

Girl.” That seemed sort of sad to my because it seems to me that most

materialists are atheists. Materialism is a form of Idolatry. But, first

things, first, where did the material world come from and what is its’ nature?

I am not a Gnostic in the heretical sense. Gnostics believe that

God is evil and that God created the world evil. The Catholic tradition,

which I subscribe to, on the other hand, teaches that God is Good and that

the material world is flawed. The material world is flawed, not because of

God, but because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, described in the Book of

Genesis. Adam and Eve both had real knowledge of God and Spirituality in

the Garden of Eden, they also had real intellect. Because of the Fall, Eve

first, and then Adam chose Original Sin and the conventional knowledge of

good and evil. Adam and Eve were plunged into a world beset by

conventional morality and conventional knowledge, the Material World.

The Material World is the World of random statistical probability.

In the Material World, Shit Happens. Although God, Angels, Saints,

Archangels, and we ourselves can intervene in this world providentially, it is

difficult. Only Catholic Wisdom, which is able to understand Fractal

Complexity, intuitively, ever really does very well with the Material World.

In classical terms, the Material World is based upon material

accident, structured by material form, and put in motion by material cause.

In terms of law, human law finds its place at the material level of existence.

Natural Law and Divine Law are found through the use of Substance,

Substantial Form and Substantial Cause. This is the World of Substance

where one’s physicality is God like. The most obvious example is that real

human beings have a Substantial Soul, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, not

just a material soul, as argued by Aristotle. Perhaps we do not receive a

Substantial Soul until Catholic baptism.

Chapter 48

The Middle Class Jesus


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have a radical argument to make. I argue that Jesus of Nazareth

was a middle class person, not poor. Let us first look to the home which

Jesus most probably lived in. Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus was a

carpenter and a furniture maker. In every culture, even today’s culture, a

carpenter doing finish carpentry or a hand made furniture maker is a skilled

tradesman, and middle class. I argue that Jesus grew up in a middle class

household and received a middle class education. Jesus’ education was

probably that of a Hellenistic Jew, giving him a very good classical greek

education in addition to the Torah.

I also argue that Jesus was a Jewish lawyer with a graduate education,

perhaps even a Sadducee. I argue that the Saddducees believed in

reincarnation rather than life after death in “Heaven.” I argue that Jesus

not only was a rabbi or teacher, but was also a member of the Sanhedrin. I

argue that Jesus was a radical lawyer who dedicated his life to the call of the

book of Isaiah for social justice. By the time of his public ministry, Jesus

from probably disbarred or expelled from the Sanhedrin for heresy. In any

event, as an adult, I argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a professional, with a

professional education and a middle class lifestyle. Some may think my

argument that Jesus was a lawyer is unfounded, but it is no more unfounded

than the argument that Jesus was an illiterate, itinerant preacher.

Chapter 49

The Moderation Corporation


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Some people argue that ordinary Corporations have a duty to maximize

profit for the shareholders. People who say this then assert that

Corporations should not be socially responsible or ethical because the only

certain standard for them is profit maximization. While I have argued

elsewhere that ethical corporate decision making utilizing the principles of

reciprocity, utility, proportionality, and equity, will result in greater profit

maximization than selfish profit maximization, as such, here I want to make

a different argument.

I argue that if a Corporation really wants to maximize profit

ethically, then the Corporation should have a Corporate charter which

provides that the Corporation seek as an end “moderate profit using

moderate means.” Such a Corporate charter provision would ensure that

Corporate management could engage in humanistic, ethical management.

Many “borderline” management decision making areas such as tuition for

employees to pursue graduate degrees, etc., would clearly be allowed or

even encouraged even if the graduate degree did not directly relate to the

employees employments tasks. Christmas gifts to employees would be

permissible. First class, total health insurance for employees would be

permissible. Environmental conservatism and recycling would be

encouraged. And more.

I encourage any Corporation interested in getting the “ethics edge” as a

profit maker to consider changing to a “for profit” moderation Corporation,

seeking moderate profit.

Chapter 50

The Multidimentional Jesus: Reincarnation or Resurrection?


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

I have argued previously, with support from Quantum Physics, that

Jesus of Nazareth incarnated multidimensionally. In this sense his life did

not necessarily turn out quite the same way in every reality frame or parallel

universe. The same can be said, of course, about his death. Perhaps in one

reality frame Jesus used Jedi type power and popped the nails out of his

hands and feet and levitated off the Cross, conquering death in a different


Let us assume for the sake of argument, however, that Jesus did in fact

die on the Cross and ended up in the tomb for Easter weekend. What if in

one reality frame Jesus did not literally ressurrect from the dead, but did

something different instead? What if in one reality frame, Jesus died, was

buried, and then immediately did a “rollover” and reincarnated as a new

Jesus with different parents the week after his death in his previous life.

Let us say that this new Jesus had all the gifts and powers of the

original. Let us say that Jesus only appeared to the disciples after the

crucifixtion as an apparition, speaking with them through elocutions by the

power of the Holy Spirit, and then immediately reincarnated? The new

Jesus, by age 6, would certainly be able to talk to people and be a leader in

the new church. The story of the resurrection was a “coded” story which

hid the real fact of the reincarnation of Jesus from his enemies, trying to

prevent the slaughter of infants which took place the last time around by the

order of King Herod.

By age 18, Jesus would be seen as an adult again, with even more

power than before because he had already fulfilled the messianic prophecy

by reason of the crucifixtion. Jesus only had to be crucified once, and only

once to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah.

After the coded cover story of the resurrection was in circulation

long enough, I argue that the probability field or Quantum Field changed in

such a way that an actual resurrection became not only believable, but

probable. Both the reincarnational account and the resurrection account are

multidimensionally true. Food for thought.

Chapter 51

The Multidimensional Mary


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

By Catholic Tradition, Jesus of Nazareth was born by way of a

Virgin Birth by his Mother, the Virgin Mary, at Bethlehem of Judea. I have

argued previously that reality is multidimensional. I argue that because

Mary is multidimensional, that in one reality frame there was a virgin birth,

and in another reality frame something different, although perhaps, equally

extraordinary happened.

I have argued previously that the maternal grandparents of Jesus of

Nazareth, that is, the parents of his mother Mary, were Marc Antony Caesar

of Rome, and Cleopatra Plotemy, of Egypt. Although Marc Antony and

Cleopatra are said to have committed suicide in Egypt, I argue that they

faked their suicides and fled to Judea where they converted to Judaism and

“went to ground.” I argue that their child Mary had a large number of

brothers and sisters and that the son of them was Saint Jude, Thomas

Judeas, Thomas Didimous, the cousin of Jesus.

I also argue that Joseph, the Father of Jesus, was a Jewish Royal,

being from the House of David, which was really the House of Joseph, the

Seer. I argue that in the Old Testament that Joseph the Seer not only

became the overseer of Egypt under Pharoah, but became the next Pharoah

after his sponsor died. I argue that this Pharoah, if the dates line up

correctly, is referred to in Egyptian history as the Pharoah Atenkehton, who

worshipped the God of One, or Aten, or as the Hindus call him Atman. I

argue that Moses was brought up as a monotheist in Pharoah’s household,

and taught to worship Aten as God. Ken Wilber says something similar in

his work.

Taking this back to New Testament times, I argue that Joseph of

Nazareth was a lineal descendent of Joseph the Seer, Pharoah of Egypt.

Thus, Jesus, in this reality frame was the biological child of Royals on both

sides of his family.

Now, given the fact that Octavias Caesar and then Caesar Augustus

were in charge in Rome, it makes sense that the Gospels would not openly

discuss the lineage of Jesus on his mother’s side, let alone his father’s, for

fear of being persecuted or exterminated. So instead we have the House of

David, (coded language,) and the Virgin Birth, (coded language,) used to

symbolize the fact that Jesus was in fact a Royal on both sides of the family

and could make a claim to be Caesar or Pharoah.

Finally, I argue that after a thousand years or more of church

tradition having taught that Jesus was a Virgin Birth, there was a shift in the

Quantum Field, and reality “shape-shifted back” multidimensionally so that

there was in fact in one reality frame, multidimensionally, an actual Virgin

Birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary took place. Argue that both accounts

presented here are equally true multidimensionally.

Chapter 52

Value and The Ethical Matrix


Anthony J. Fejfar, J.D., Esq., Coif

© Copyright 2007 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Second Natural Law Principle under the Ethical Matrix is

Utility. Utility is defined as “Maximization of Value.” Value is

apprehended by utilizing a scale of values as a utility preference scale. As I

have asserted previously, my highest value is Rational Self Interest, while

my second highest value is Autonomy. My third highest value is Self-

Actualization, and my fourth highest value is helping others, especially those

in need.

Rational Self Interest is my highest value because I want to be sure

that no one else is choosing my values for me. Rational means logically or

causally determined, Self means the True Self, Who I really am inside, and,

Interest means those things which I value for myself. Autonomy means

Self-Direction. Self-Actualization means that one actualizes one’s self in a

way which is at once selfish and spiritual. Self-Actualizing people follow

the Self or Holy Spirit in them. Finally, helping others is based upon the

Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament.

There are other options of course, for one’s highest value. One might

choose God, for example, as one’s highest value. This is problematic

because religious authority figures might very well claim the right to say

what God is or God requires for me. This is a denial of my religious

freedom and my Autonomy.

Another choice for one’s highest value might be family. However,

once again, it is quite possible that some family member might define

“family” for you to your detriment. Additionally, is it right to say that one

should favor one’s family above all else? What if I and my family were

billionaires and all those living in the neighborhood next to me are starving?

Is it right that I should have an opulent life style using my family as an

excuse? I don’t think so. Following the Old Testament account of the

Patriarch Abraham, it is clear that if one places one’s family ahead of The

Good, then one has committed a form of idolatry.

Finally, one might choose money as one’s highest value. Once again

this presents problems. If money is one’s highest value then it would seem

that one would be authorized to steal from others or cheat others in order to

get more money. This is ethically problematic from the point of view of




You might also like