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 nonwaivable. 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 14th 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, Hitlers Justice, (Harvard University Press 1991).