Related posts:
Line forms outside court prior to mask rule taking effect
By joining U.S. workforce, boy, 16, allows presumptions against interest
‘Person of ordinary prudence’ hailed as Hooker fights judges for local economy
City searches for police chief; local economy v. official violence
GoldMoney creator: Hyperinflation signals for U.S. are significant, I
Chattanooga Declaration asks breakup of U.S. to end totalitarianism, ease bankruptcy
Police power reform — precept on precept, line by line
Is Boyd prosecution just? Lambert nails political talk by criminal charge
Gay ‘gunshot in mouth’ would open Scout marketplace to local brands
Seeking volunteer for reform-oriented TNtrafficticket project
Red Bank awaits liberation from retrograde rules, hostile cops, empty storefronts
City enforces driver license law in defiance of Tennessee code
Melvin presses claims vs. cop in hearing over false arrest
Does Romans 13 authorize police?
At-home violence soars; abuse by cops, outnumbered 500 to 1, ahead if seige drags on
There is an ancient maxim of the law that states ignorantia juris non excusat, or “ignorance of the law does not excuse.” Put another way, it is presumed that the public knows the laws, and a defense of ignorance is typically not allowed. So, if the public in general is presumed to know the law, even if they have never even actually seen and read it, then how is it possible for those empowered by we the people to serve within the executive and judicial departments of government in order to apply and enforce the laws to ever be able to claim ignorance as the basis for their getting an interpretation, application, or ruling on any given law completely wrong in any or every possible way or completely in spite of it?…
by Eddie Craig