You are on page 1of 3

State vs. Perrina

#

S-09-1021

Decided

October 7, 2011

Nebraska Supreme Court

Comment

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd.

Member, United States Supreme Court Bar

(C)Perpetual (C)Copyright (2011 C.E.) By Anthony J. Fejfar

and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

In State vs. Perina, Judge Gerrard of the Nebraska Supreme Court opined that

the Nebraska manslaughter statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 28-306, was

constitutional. Unfortunately, in this case the Court has erred. You see, Nebraska

Territory, and later the State of Nebraska, holds of Pennsylvania Colony an later

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for its legal tradition, prior to the

establishment of the State of Nebraska, and the Nebraska Supreme Court.

This

means that Nebraska is bound by the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, granted by

King Charles II, House of Stuart. The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 provides, in

pertinent part, that all laws to be valid, must be in accordance with reason.

Moreover, such laws cannot be inconsistent with the English Common Law as of

1681, which of course includes Magna Charta (1215) and Grotius (1625), and the

common law as evidenced by the Summaries of the English Common Law found

in Blackstone and Coke. Additionally the law of Nebraska cannot be inconsistent

with the natural law set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which provides

that every person has a natural right or individual right of Life, Liberty, and the

Pursuit of Happiness, which is perpetual, irrevocable, inalienable, and non-

waivable.

This means that every Nebraskan has a Liberty interest which can only

be interfered with by government where the actions of the person are

unreasonable, and where the state action or law is itself reasonable, and rationally

related to a legitimate state interest. See generally, the United States Supreme

Court cases of, Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905),

NAACP vs

Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1973), and Lugar vs Edmunson Oil, 457 U.S. 922 (1982).

(Reason is defined as that cognitive faculty or capability which is a composite of

love, logic, and intuition. Love is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward.

Logic is defined as that which is not illogical, that is, a statement, argument, or

action which does not involve or is not based upon a logical contradiction, such as

attempting to assert that A and not can exist at and in the same time and in the

same place. Intuition is defined as that cognitive faculty or capability which

involves high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.)

Now, the English Common Law requires that for a criminal offense to be

properly charged, the prosecutor must plead and prove Mens Rea and Actus Rea,

that is the prosecutor must plead and prove the alleged Defendant had both

Specific Intent to commit an Overt Act which has been constitutionally defined as

a crime, and, also the prosecutor must plead and prove that the Overt Act which

has been constitutionally defined as a crime as actually taken place, using

admissable evidence.

In the present case, the crime of manslaughter, as found in Nebraska Revised

Statute Section 28-306, does not require the elements of Mens Rea and therefore

violates the Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, Magna Charta (1215), Grotius (1625),

The Declaration of Independence, and the Substantive Due Process Clause of the

14 th

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Only intentional acts can be

criminalized, not negligent or reckless acts. This is the Conservative approach set

in place by the Western Legal Tradition and by The Founding Fathers of the

American Revolution.

Judge Gerrard might note that this is Nebraska and

America, not nazi germany. Obviously, this wrongly decided opinion must be

withdrawn. For an excellent account of the corrupt and evil judiciary during nazi

germany, see generally, Ingo Muller, “Hitler’s Justice,” (Harvard University Press

1991).