Paradox of Self-Amendment by Peter Suber 67(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Act," Yale Law Journal, 66 (1957) 784; Richard Peck, "Federal Tax Liens —Their Removal or Foreclosure, Priority Thereof, and the Problem of Circuity of Priorities," Nebraska Law Review, 38 (1959) 163-72; Grant Gilmore, "Circular Priority Systems," Yale Law Journal, 71 (1961) 53-74; R.H. Stern, "Priority Paradoxes in Patent Law," Vanderbilt Law Review, 16 (1962) 131; Alan L. Tyree, "Circular Priorities in Secured Transactions," American Mathematical Monthly, 87 (1980) 186-93. The best review of the literature and summary of approaches for dealing with circular priorities is Grant Gilmore's 1961 article. 16. Technically, the jurisdiction of a court to determine its own jurisdiction is subject to res judicata and direct review, but not collateral attack. See Anon., "Res Judicata and Jurisdiction: The Bootstrap Doctrine," Harvard Law Review, 53 (1940) 652-660. See Peri v. Groves, 50 NYS 2d. 300, 308 (1944); Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Association, 283 U.S. 522; 118 ALR 1518; Charles S. Collier, "Judicial Bootstraps and the General Welfare Clause," George Washington Law Review, 4 (1936) 211-242. 17. The infinite regress is as follows. If a defendant challenged the jurisdiction of court #1 over her, and court #1 could not itself decide the issue of jurisdiction, then the question would have to go to an appeals court #2. If the defendant challenges the jurisdiction of court #2 over her, then the question passes to court #3, and so on. To avoid this it is necessary that some court in the series have the jurisdiction to decide its own jurisdiction; in our system this power is given to virtually every court. 18. W.J. Rees, "The Theory of Sovereignty Restated," Mind, 59 (October 1950) 495-521, at p. 518. 19. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Original 1859), Hackett Publishing Co., 1978, pp. 101f. 20. See Section 18, note 8, above, and Appendix 2, below. 21. For more discussion of renvoi from a logical point of view, see Fiori Rinaldi, "Dilemmas and Circles in the Law," Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 51 (1965) 319-335 at 330f; J.C. Hicks, "The Liar Paradox in Legal Reasoning," Cambridge Law Journal, 29, 2 (November 1971) 275- 291, at 284-286 and citations at his footnote 47; and Laurence Goldstein, "Four Alleged Paradoxes in Legal Reasoning," Cambridge Law Journal, 38 (1979) 373-91, at 380f. 22. See Rinaldi, op. cit. at 321 and 321.n.8. 23. Rinaldi, op. cit. at 333. 24. Goldstein, op. cit. at 380-81, emphases in original. 25. Ross, op. cit. at pp. 21ff. 26. There is a very large literature on this problem. See e.g. W.N. Harrison, "The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Sovereignty (II)," Australian Law Journal, 17 (1944) 314; Geoffrey Marshall, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Commonwealth, Oxford University Press, 1957, Chapter VI; Ilmar Tammelo, "The Antinomy of Parliamentary Sovereignty," Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 44 (1958) 495-516, at pp. 510-12; Geoffrey Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Oxford University Press, 1971, at pp. 61ff. 27. J.M. Finnis, "Revolutions and the Continuity of Law," in A.W.B. Simpson (ed.), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Second Series, Oxford University Press, 1973, pp. 44-76, at 52. 28. A contract is integrated when it is the complete agreement of the parties and is not, for example, subject to oral qualifications not written into the contract. 29. The medieval literature on this and similar paradoxes is well covered in Paul Vincent Spade, The Mediaeval Liar: A Catalogue of the Insolubilia- Literature, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1975; and E.J. Ashworth, "Will Socrates Cross the Bridge? A Problem in Medieval Logic," Franciscan Studies, 36 (1976) 75-84. 30. Part 2, Chapter 51. This paradox is discussed in Max Black, Language and Philosophy, Cornell University Press, 1949, pp. 91ff. 31. See George P. Fletcher, "Paradoxes in Legal Thought," Columbia Law Review, 85 (1985) 1263-1292 at p. 1269, and his cited sources. 32. For further discussion of these issues, see my "Logical Rudeness," in S.J. Bartlett and P. Suber (eds.), Self-Reference: Reflections on Reflexivity, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, pp. 41-67, esp. pp. 62f. 33. Some witnesses may be caught in a further reflexive dilemma, although it is not related to knowing before we know. If the judge asks contextual questions to determine whether the witness is justified in invoking the privilege against self-incrimination, the witness is bound to answer these contextual questions under oath. It may be that one kind of self-incrimination she wishes to avoid is the exposure of earlier perjury. Truthful answers to the judge's contextual questions may expose her perjury by contradicting her earlier testimony. Hence, to the witness, the privilege would have to be invoked again at the meta-level, against the judge's contextual questions. Courts facing this situation compel answers to the contextual questions, as if there were no privilege, but protect the answers from future criminal prosecution. In re Boiardo, 34 N.J. 599, 170 A.2d 816 (1961). 147