Wolf Eagle
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of
the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a public policy
holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that
law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have
presumed knowledge of the law.

The rationale behind the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, persons charged
with criminal offenses or the subject of civil lawsuits would merely claim they were
unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if they know what the law in
question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the
jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for
someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every
aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot
become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any
undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear
power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that
undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and
distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over
the Internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices.

In the Criminal Law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a
consideration in sentence, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought
advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian
case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they
had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into
Canada. Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute
discharge.

In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and
cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or
isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of
game offenses where the law was changed during the period of time they were in the
wilderness hunting. In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English
law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted
even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1).

Source: Wikipedia





You have just read a very brief description of the "Ignorance of the law is no
excuse" mentality. Have you ever found it funny how the government "imputes"
knowledge of these laws expecting YOU to know them by saying that the laws
were made "widely" available. Really? What about 100 years ago before the
Internet? Before everything that we know of today? How much information was
made available to the citizens back then? Could an immigrant just off the boat
claim some sort of "ignorance" of a law? Have any of you ever been caught doing
something, or the like, and once asked about it you say, "ahh, I don't know". I
think it is safe to say we all have honestly "not known" that something we did
was wrong, but then again, maybe we all lied. Who knows, right?

What about a person that has a law degree, what about them? What if they mess
up and break the law? One thing for sure, they by all means knew the law, right?
Should a person schooled in the science of law be punished twice as hard for
breaking something he knew full well with complete clarity was wrong yet did it
anyway? Why not?

What about a person that swears to an oath to protect the ultimate of law, our
United States constitution, what about them? What should happen to them if
they are remotely suspected of cheating, dishonesty or any act that diminishes
their oath of office? Should they be removed from office, jailed and have ALL
their ill gotten possessions removed from them?

Has anyone ever wondered how that the people that know law or know lawyers,
or have the ability to hire a lawyer to "speak" and "act" for them seem to always
manage to thrive and live a great lifestyle while the rest of us are forced to
actually tote the line and be societies pack mules? Doesn't such shit piss you
off? It sure pisses me off to see crooks walk free and thrive at the expense of
others.

My opinion is if law is so important that is imputed upon us to just "know it" or
else, then why doesn't a public school system teach it to us? Why do certain
ones that qualify and can afford it be forced to go to a law school in order to not
truly be ignorant of the law? Community schools teach us everything from tying
our shoes to safe sex yet for some reason the government fails to remotely teach
us anything that is against the law. Almost like a Bible class. In a Bible study
class we all can actually learn the teachings of a Bible by being taught and
explained those passages as a child on up through adulthood. Then perhaps
ignorance would be no excuse for sinning and burning in hell for it, right? So
why doesn't the government insist on teach school children the laws they are
expect to not only know, but to obey or be punished. It makes absolutely no
sense to me.

So think about it folks. Maybe the reason crime is on the rise can be somewhat
attributed to "ignorance" in a true and honest fashion. I have read many, many
laws myself where I had never even heard of such crap in my life. What is the
number of laws in the United States again? The last number I ever heard was
that there was over 80 million ordinances, codes and laws on the books. I don't
even know if that number includes all the regulations that have the force of law.
So, how in the hell am I expected to know over 80 million laws? Does that within
itself justify a bona fide ignorance of such law defense?

Maybe that is why we never seem to see the names of senators, congressmen,
councilmen, commissioners, police, lawyers and judges  names (just to name a
few) listed in the arrest blotters. Maybe it is true that by knowing the law one
cannot be condemned or accused of breaking the law. But then again, maybe
that's just what they want you to think...

Educate your mind folks!
This web site DOES NOT provide any legal advice and users of this web site should consult
with their own lawyer for legal advice if you can afford it. If you cannot afford it how
about reading and learning a few things about law so as to reduce your dependence upon a
fellow in a cheap suit. Just a suggestion.

This web site (the "Site") is a general service Site that commingles fiction with non-fiction
and the entire Site is designed to be used as a form of adult entertainment.

The Site does NOT provide legal information over the Internet. We are not a law firm and
our employees, IF we were lucky enough to have any, affiliates or assigns are not acting as
your attorney. That would be like the blind leading the blind.

The information contained in portions of this Site is general legal information and should
not be construed as legal advice to be applied to any specific factual situation.

If you feel that you need legal advise of any kind, you should consult a lawyer OR learn
how to do it yourself. It really isn't that hard and damn sure doesn't command the
outrageous fees these guys charge either. Look at representing yourself as "fixing your
own car". Even those who can fix their own car need guidance every now and then.

Use of our Site is governed by our Terms and Conditions.