Ignorance Of The Law Is Not An Excuse Confiscation All Your Property & All Assets

If you are unaware you are breaking a law, should you be held accountable? In general, the law says yes. Everyone in America knows that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It is drummed into students from their first civics class in elementary school, so much so that it is a part of our cultural heritage. The phrase captures an important concept about culpability.

Show more

Per U.S.A. Government DOA-DOJ-FBI-CIA-Etc. Everyone In U.S.A. All Person And Or America Citizens Right Now Today Is A Criminal As of Oct 2023 Need To Be In Jail Or Pay $$$ Fines Now. Per all federal and local police and all government agencies. All The America People Break The Law's Average 3 Times Everyday with A Average Fine of $512 dollars a day. it add up to $512 x 365 days in a year add up to $186,880 Dollars per year in fines per every person alive today right now.

Yes Ignorance Of The Law Is Not An Excuse Confiscation All Your Property & All Assets This Is No Joke U.S.A. Is Planning To Take All Your Assets In Fines and also per federal and local agencies issue an average of 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

In A Secrets Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) Hearing Nov. 11 2023 And The Court Established by Congress. The Court entertains applications made by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.

From This Secret Hearing In A U.S. Supreme Court 9 to 0 Rulings On Jan. 01 2024 - All Person In U.S.A. And Or America Citizens Right Now Today Are Criminal Of The more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books has addressed the issue of ignorance of the law.

It Is Order For The Confiscation All Your Property In U.S.A. & All Assets To Pay Fine And Or Jail Time. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Is A Criminal & Need 2 Go To Jail for life.

UN Invasion, Martial Law, Rex 84 Death Camps, Globalist Purge, Operation Cable Splicer - https://rumble.com/v41h3zp-un-invasion-martial-law-rex-84-death-camps-globalist-purge-operation-cable-.html

Guide To Understanding Globalist Purge FEMA Quarantine Re-Education Death Camp - https://rumble.com/v41deia-guide-to-understanding-globalist-purge-fema-quarantine-re-education-death-c.html

World Economic Forum Great Reset Medical Tyranny, Woke Culture, Green Agenda - https://rumble.com/v3jfm06-world-economic-forum-great-reset-medical-tyranny-woke-culture-green-agenda.html

However, the rules issued in a given year are typically not substantively related to the current year’s laws, as agency output represents ongoing implementation of earlier legislation. Remember That Ignorance of the law is a fundamental legal principle in the US that means that if someone breaks the law, they are still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken. According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone every day for your life with violating some long-forgotten regulation or law and to pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A.. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Is A Criminal & Need 2 Go To Jail for life.

The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not) or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one) is derived from Roman law. Essentially, it means that if someone breaks the law, he or she is still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended.”

Today, there are literally tens of thousands of laws on the books, both federally and on a state level. Is it reasonable to assume that everyone knows every law?

According to Tiffany N. Basciano, associate director of the International Law and Organizations Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC, it is reasonable to assume that people are familiar with generally recognized wrongs, such as violence and dishonesty, as well as community standards based on their lived experience.

“Is it reasonable to expect people to know every law on the books? No. But generally knowledge of the law is not required,” Basciano says.

The government has a duty to appropriately disseminate new laws to the public and making them publicly accessible.

“Knowledge of all properly disseminated laws can be attributed to everyone,” she says. “If knowledge of the law were required, criminal and civil defendants alike would routinely plead ignorance of the law as a defense, which would undermine the concept and administration of justice.”

Basciano also points out that in criminal law, a person cannot be charged for any conduct that was not prohibited at the time of the act. In other words, a law cannot be passed retroactively criminalizing an act.

“This idea reflects the legal principle of nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law),” Basciano says. “There is also a doctrine called the rule of lenity, which provides that courts should interpret ambiguous criminal laws in favor of the defendant.”

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings
Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of ignorance of the law. The 1833 case of Barlow v. United States involved the seizure of 85 barrels of sugar, which Joseph Barlow was attempting to export under the false denomination of refined sugar. Barlow contended that the sugar was not entered by false denomination and he did not intend to defraud the revenue. The Court did not believe that Barlow had no knowledge that the sugar he was attempting to export was unrefined and said the case presented a broader question of “whether a mistake of law will excuse a forfeiture in cases of this description. We think it will not. The whole course of jurisprudence, criminal as well as civil, of the common law points to a different conclusion. It is a common maxim familiar to all minds that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally, and it results from the extreme difficulty of ascertaining what is the bona fide interpretation of the party, and the extreme danger of allowing such excuses to be set up for illegal acts, to the detriment of the public.”

More recently, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA. That case involved the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The plaintiff in the case, Karen Jerman sued a law firm that instituted foreclosure proceedings against her property in error. The law firm acknowledged that it violated the FDCPA, but that its error was a bona fide error. An Ohio district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the law firm. The Appeals Court held that the FDCPA error defense applies to mistakes of law.

The question for the U.S. Supreme Court was to decide whether a debt collector’s mistake in law qualifies as a bona fide error defense. The Court ruled it did not and that such an error can never be “not intentional.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor used the same language—“ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally” as in the Barlow case.

Some Exceptions
The U.S. Supreme Court has made some exceptions to the “ignorance is not an excuse” defense. In the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, the Court ruled that the defendant’s (Lambert) failure to register as a felon after moving to Los Angeles was a “wholly passive act.” Lambert, who had been previously convicted of forgery, was unaware of an ordinance requiring that she register as a felon if in the city of Los Angeles for more than five days. Because she was not allowed to use ignorance of the law as a defense, she was convicted, fined $250 and sentenced to three years probation. Lambert could have faced as much as six months in jail for every day in the city after exceeding the five-day limit. The Court reversed the conviction. Justice William Douglas wrote in the Court’s majority opinion, “Where a person did not know of the duty to register and where there was no proof of the probability of such knowledge, he may not be convicted consistent with due process.”

Another exception the U.S. Supreme Court has carved out with regard to ignorance of the law deals with the tax code. In the 1991 case of Cheek v. United States, the Court said: “The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system…The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term ‘willfully’ as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws.

While “ignorance of the law” is not an excuse, Basciano says in some cases, it may be a mitigating circumstance when considering sentencing in a criminal case, or reduced damages in a civil case.

“Legislators could write both criminal and civil law statutes in a way that requires a ‘willful’ violation of the law, making knowledge of the law relevant to liability,” she says.

Discussion Questions
1. What is the difference between a law and a rule? What happens if you claim ignorance of a rule? What are some rules that exist that you believe should be law?
2. Think of a time when you broke a rule that you were not aware of. How did you feel? How was the situation resolved?
3. The article speaks of some exceptions where people claimed ignorance and were not convicted of the crime. Think of some other examples where a person might commit a crime unknowingly and should not be punished. Explain your reasoning.

Glossary Words:
ambiguous: unclear.
bona fide: sincerely; without intention to deceive.
due process: legal safeguards that a citizen may claim if a state or court makes a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.
jurisprudence: the philosophy of law or a legal system.
lenity: kindness.
mitigating circumstances: factors that may lessen accountability, but do not excuse a defendant from guilt.
proliferation: rapid increase in number.
reverse: to void or change a decision by a lower court.
retroactively: with effect from a date in the past.
statute: a written law passed by a legislative body.

Some criminals might be content to serve time in prison, if they know their assets will be available upon release, or that their non-incarcerated families may continue to enjoy the proceeds of crime. This is why confiscation of assets is such an important measure to prevent and combat organized crime. It is also an equally important tool to prevent organized crime infiltration of the legal economy.

Confiscation is also known as forfeiture in some jurisdictions. The two terms will be used interchangeably in this Module. Confiscation of assets or property is the permanent deprivation of property by order of a court or administrative procedures, which transfers the ownership of assets derived from criminal activity to the State. The persons or entities that owned those funds or assets at the time of the confiscation or forfeiture lose all rights to the confiscated assets (FATF, 2017; McCaw, 2011; Ramaswamy, 2013).

The large revenues generated from organized crime activity can affect the legitimate economy and in particular the banking system adversely through untaxed profits and illicitly funded investments. Furthermore, even after having invested in the legal economy, organized criminal groups often continue to use illicit tools and methods to advance their business, potentially pushing other businesses out of the market. Confiscation of assets is a way to undermine the fiscal structure and even the survival of an organized criminal group by seizing illicitly obtained cash and any property derived from criminal activity (Aylesworth, 1991; Baumer, 2008; U.S. Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, 1990).

Confiscation occurs under one of two types of proceedings: conviction-based confiscation or forfeiture and non-conviction-based confiscation or forfeiture. They differ in the level of proof required for it to take place. Conventionally, non-conviction-based confiscation requires a standard of proof that is lower than the standard required to obtain a conviction in a criminal court.

Conviction-based confiscation or forfeiture: confiscation by the State of proceeds of a crime for which a conviction of an offender has been recorded. This is also called criminal confiscation or forfeiture in some jurisdictions.

Non-conviction-based confiscation or forfeiture: asset confiscation or forfeiture in the absence of the conviction of the wrongdoer. The term is often used interchangeably with civil confiscation or forfeiture.

Furthermore, States might decide to adopt a value based approach to confiscation, which enables a court to impose a pecuniary liability (such as a fine), once it determines the benefit derived directly or indirectly from the criminal conduct. Value-based confiscation is also included in article 12 (1)(a) of the Organized Crime Convention. It is also worth mentioning that, in some countries, assets may be confiscated even if they are not directly linked to the specific crime for which the offender has been convicted, but clearly result from similar criminal activities (i.e. extended confiscation).

Growing use of confiscation offers the opportunity to disrupt continuing illicit enterprises and to curtail the effect of large amounts of illicitly obtained cash on the economy. There has been a growing body of case law and policy regarding the seizure and disposition of property in asset forfeiture cases.

Concerns regarding the seizure and disposition of property include:

Lawfulness of confiscation.
Protecting the rights of third parties.
Management and disposition of seized or confiscated assets.

Lawfulness of confiscation
Every jurisdiction has specific powers and limits to guide the confiscation of assets. The procedures permitted correspond with the legal traditions in the country. In some civil law jurisdictions, the power to order the restraint or seizure of assets subject to confiscation is granted to prosecutors, investigating magistrates or law enforcement agencies. In other civil law jurisdictions, judicial authorization is required.

In common law jurisdictions, an order to restrain or seize assets generally requires judicial authorization (with some exceptions in seizure cases). Legal systems may have strict obligations to give notice to investigative targets, such as when a search or production order is served on a third party such as a financial institution. That third party may be obliged to advise their client of the existence of such orders, which means that the client would be forewarned about an investigative interest. That must be taken into consideration when taking steps to secure assets or use coercive investigative measures (UNODC, 2012).

The legal principle behind confiscation or forfeiture is that the government may take property without compensation to the owner if the property is acquired or used illegally. There are several broad mechanisms for accomplishing this, however the three predominant types of processes used to confiscate property are: administrative (no conviction), property or criminal (conviction-based), and value-based (UNODC, 2012).

Conviction-based (or criminal) confiscation
In a conviction-based confiscation, property can only be seized once the owner has been convicted of certain crimes. Criminal confiscation is a common approach to asset confiscation in which investigators gather evidence, trace and secure assets, conduct a prosecution, and obtain a conviction. Upon the conviction, confiscation can be ordered by the court. The standard of proof required (normally proof beyond a reasonable doubt) for the confiscation order is often the same as that required to achieve a criminal conviction.

Onus of proof

Article 12 (7) of the Organized Crime Convention states that States parties may consider the possibility of requiring that an offender demonstrate the lawful origin of alleged proceeds of crime or other property liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law and with the nature of the judicial and other proceedings.

Similarly, FATF Recommendation 4 states that countries should consider adopting measures, which require an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law. It is best practice for countries to implement such measures, consistent with the principles of domestic law (FATF, 2012). The following are two examples of how such measures may be structured.

When considering confiscation, the court must decide whether the defendant has a "criminal lifestyle". A defendant will be deemed to have a criminal lifestyle if one of three conditions is satisfied. There has to be a minimum total benefit for conditions (2) and (3) below to be satisfied.

The three conditions are:

It is a 'lifestyle offence' (for example, drug trafficking);
It is part of a 'course of criminal conduct' or
It is an offence committed over a period of at least 6 months and the defendant has benefited from it.
The court is required to calculate benefit from criminal conduct using one of two methods:

1) General criminal conduct ("criminal lifestyle confiscation"):

This method is used when the defendant is deemed to have a criminal lifestyle. The court must assume that:

Any property transferred to the defendant from after a date six years prior to the commencement of the criminal proceedings was obtained as a result of criminal conduct;
Any property held by the defendant at any time after the date of conviction was obtained as the result of criminal conduct;
Any expenditure over the 6-year period mentioned above was met by property obtained as a result of criminal conduct;
For valuation purposes, any property obtained by the defendant was obtained free of third party interests.
Where the criminal lifestyle condition is satisfied, the burden of proof in respect of the origin of the property is then effectively reversed (i.e. the prosecution has met its evidential obligation and the defendant has to prove on a balance of probabilities that a particular asset, transfer, or expenditure has a legitimate source).

2) Particular Criminal Conduct ("criminal conduct confiscation"):

This method is used when the defendant is not deemed to have a criminal lifestyle. This requires the prosecutor to show what property or financial advantage the defendant has obtained from the specific offence charged. The law permits the prosecutor to trace property or financial advantage that directly or indirectly represents benefit (for example, property purchased using the proceeds of crime). There is no minimum threshold for this method of calculation of benefit.

Non-conviction-based (or administrative) confiscation
A non-conviction-based confiscation occurs independently of any criminal proceeding and is directed at the property itself, having been used or acquired illegally. Conviction of the property owner is not relevant in this kind of confiscation.

Administrative confiscation generally involves a procedure for confiscating assets used or involved in the commission of the offence that have been seized in the course of the investigation. It is most often seen in the field of customs enforcement at borders (e.g., bulk cash, drug, or weapons seizures), and applies when the nature of the item seized justifies an administrative confiscation approach (without a prior court review). This process is less viable when the property is a bank account or other immovable property. The confiscation is carried out by an investigator or authorized agency (such as a police unit or a designated law enforcement agency), and usually follows a process where the person affected by the seizure can apply for relief from the automatic confiscation of the seized property, such as a court hearing. All proceeds of crime are subject to confiscation, which has been interpreted to include interest, dividends, income, and real property, although there are variations by jurisdiction (for more information, please see StAR's " A Good Practice Guide for Non-conviction-based Asset Forfeiture").

Whereas the Organized Crime Convention does not make reference to this type of confiscation, the Convention against Corruption includes it in article 54 (1)(c), which encourages States to "consider taking such measures as may be necessary to allow confiscation of [property acquired through or involved in the commission of an offence established in accordance with this Convention] without a criminal conviction in cases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence or in other appropriate cases".

Value-based confiscation
Some jurisdictions elect to use a value-based approach, which is a system where a convicted person is ordered to pay an amount of money equivalent to the value of their criminal benefit. This is sometimes used in cases where specific assets cannot be located. The court calculates the benefit to the convicted offender for a particular offence. Value-based confiscation allows for the value of proceeds and instrumentalities of a crime to be determined and assets of an equivalent value to be confiscated.

Protecting the rights of third parties
Concern arises regarding the rights of individuals not involved in criminal activity, but whose property is used in, or derived from, the criminal activity of others (Friedler, 2013; Geis, 2008; Gibson, 2012; Goldsmith and Lenck, 1990). This might include uninformed lien holders and purchasers, joint tenants, or business partners. A person who suspects his or her property is the target of a criminal or administrative confiscation investigation may sell the property, give ownership to family members, or otherwise dispose of it.

Third-party claims on seized property are sometimes delayed in criminal confiscations because the claim often cannot be litigated until the end of the criminal trial. In an administrative confiscation, the procedure moves more quickly because the confiscation hearing usually occurs soon after the confiscation. In some jurisdictions, third parties are protected under the 'innocent owner' exception for non-conviction-based confiscations, if the government fails to establish that they had knowledge, consent, or wilful blindness to illegal usage of the property.

Disposition of confiscated assets
Some of most commonly confiscated assets are cash, cars and weapons, as well as luxury property such as boats, planes and jewellery. Residential and commercial property are also subject to confiscation. Once an asset is confiscated, it must be appraised to determine the property's value, less any claims against it. The item must be stored and maintained while ownership and any third-party claims are heard in court. If the challenge to the confiscation is not effective, the property is taken for government use or auctioned.

There has been controversy over the use of confiscated assets by some law enforcement agencies. Laws in some jurisdictions earmark specific uses for confiscated assets, such as for education costs. Some have claimed that confiscation of assets that are kept by police provide an incentive for spurious or aggressive confiscations (Bartels, 2010; Skolnick, 2008; Worrall and Kovandzic, 2008).

Country experiences in managing and disposing of confiscated assets

In 2017, the UNODC released a publication titled "Effective Management and Disposal of Seized and Confiscated Assets" to provide States and relevant personnel with guidance on confiscation and seizure. Covering all geographical regions, varying legal systems, and differing levels of development, the study presents the experience of 64 countries on the management and disposal of seized and confiscated assets. The study presents previous experiences to help anyone tasked with developing legal and policy frameworks and/or responsible for the day-to-day management of seized and confiscated assets on knowing how to either avoid or better manage the associated risks and challenges (UNODC, 2017).

FATF has also developed a list of recommendations and best practices on the management of frozen, seized and confiscated property (FATF, 2012). Ideally, an asset management framework has the following characteristics:

(a) There is a framework for managing or overseeing the management of frozen, seized and confiscated property. This should include designated authority(ies) who are responsible for managing (or overseeing management of) such property. It should also include legal authority to preserve and manage such property.

(b) There are sufficient resources in place to handle all aspects of asset management.

(c) Appropriate planning takes place prior to taking freezing or seizing action.

(d) There are measures in place to:

(i) properly care for and preserve as far as practicable such property;

(ii) deal with the individual's and third-party rights;

(iii) dispose of confiscated property;

(iv) keep appropriate records; and

(v) take responsibility for any damages to be paid, following legal action by an individual in respect of loss or damage to property.

(e) Those responsible for managing (or overseeing the management of) property have the capacity to provide immediate support and advice to law enforcement at all times in relation to freezing and seizure, including advising on and subsequently handling all practical issues in relation to freezing and seizure of property.

(f) Those responsible for managing the property have sufficient expertise to manage any type of property.

(g) There is statutory authority to permit a court to order a sale, including in cases where the property is perishable or rapidly depreciating.

(h) There is a mechanism to permit the sale of property with the consent of the owner.

(i) Property that is not suitable for public sale is destroyed. This includes any property: that is likely to be used for carrying out further criminal activity; for which ownership constitutes a criminal offence; that is counterfeit; or that is a threat to public safety.

(j) In the case of confiscated property, there are mechanisms to transfer title, as necessary, without undue complication and delay.

(k) To ensure the transparency and assess the effectiveness of the system, there are mechanisms to: track frozen/seized property; assess its value at the time of freezing/seizure, and thereafter as appropriate; keep records of its ultimate disposition; and, in the case of a sale, keep records of the value realised.

Everyone in America knows that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It is drummed into students from their first civics class in elementary school, so much so that it is a part of our cultural heritage. The phrase captures an important concept about culpability. It stems from a time when criminal law was grounded in morality and a shared understanding of wrongfulness and when crimes were self-evident wrongs—what the law calls “wrong in their essence,” or “ malum in se.” Perhaps the best example of how deeply this idea is ingrained in society is the classic Steve Martin comedy sketch in which Martin gazes into the camera plaintively and presents his defense to being accused of a “foul crime”: “two simple words, I forgot”—as in “I forgot armed robbery is illegal.” The joke, of course, is that nobody could forget that armed robbery (or rape or murder) is a crime.[1] That is because inherent wrongs put people on notice, in effect, that the criminal law might apply.

But the rule that ignorance is no excuse does not work as well for crimes that are not inherently wrong. Today, there are thousands of crimes that are crimes only because they are prohibited by statute. For these types of crimes—known as “wrongs by prohibition,” or malum prohibitum[2]—the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse works only when a person knows what the statute requires or, at a minimum, could have discovered what the statute requires with a reasonable amount of effort.

Therein lies the problem. The criminal laws are not always easy to track down and not always easy to understand. In fact, many laws are nearly impossible to understand in all of their complexity, and the whole corpus of federal law is in fact impossible to know. There are so many crimes in the federal law books that no conscientious citizen (or even a conscientious legislator, law enforcement officer, lawyer, or judge) could possibly know what they require. This puts Americans at risk of conviction and imprisonment for the violation of laws that are impossible to find and impossible to know, effectively discarding the traditional protection that conviction requires culpability.

The way to fix this problem is to require the federal government to identify all of the criminal provisions of federal law. Those provisions should then be consolidated in a single, easily accessible place—such as Title 18 of the U.S. Code—for ease of location and understanding. Additionally, Congress should require the executive branch to keep the list up-to-date, to ensure that Americans have a fighting chance to keep up with the criminal laws that apply to their conduct.

Ignorance Is No Excuse
The idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse is captured today in the doctrine of “scienter.” In general, an individual can be guilty of a criminal act only if he acts with a criminal intent, or scienter, to accomplish a criminal purpose. Under most statutes, to win a conviction, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

The requirement that a crime involve culpable purposeful intent has a solid historical grounding. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote:

The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. A relation between some mental element and punishment for a harmful act is almost as instinctive as the child’s familiar exculpatory “But I didn’t mean to,” and has afforded the rational basis for a tardy and unfinished substitution of deterrence and reformation in place of retaliation and vengeance as the motivation for public prosecution. Unqualified acceptance of this doctrine by English common law was indicated by Blackstone’s sweeping statement that to constitute any crime there must first be a “vicious will.”

The very earliest English common law recognized that one who intends to commit a crime (say, injuring a horse) but accidentally commits a different crime (killing the horse) could not be said to have intended the graver offense and therefore could not be held criminally liable for it. But this view of scienter—that the government must show that the defendant intended both to do the act constituting the offense and to accomplish the particular harm prohibited—did not last long. The English and American courts quickly came to the view that in most legal contexts, a criminal actor who intends to engage in an act is liable for whatever harm follows, even if it is different from that which he originally contemplated. In the words of the Model Penal Code, one can act “knowingly” without regard to any specific intent to accomplish a wrongful act or violate a law. It is enough to know that one is undertaking the acts that constitute the offense.

As to malum in se offenses, this doctrine is not in the least problematic. Everyone knows, for example, that shooting another person is wrongful conduct and may bring criminal sanction. Accordingly, the law infers intentionality and culpability, even where there may be no direct evidence that the result (killing another person) was specifically intended.

As to the growing number of malum prohibitum offenses, however, the analysis is radically different. Building on the maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” courts now routinely conclude that one can be convicted of a crime for having acted knowingly (that is, purposefully doing an act) without requiring the government to prove that the defendant sought to achieve a particular end or to violate a known legal duty contained in a statute or regulation. For example, violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act require only proof of deliberate business conduct, not proof of intent to abuse a monopoly or to restrain competition.

As a result, for malum prohibitum offenses, scienter requirements provide little protection against conviction in the absence of culpability. Consider, for example, the risk of prosecution in a highly regulated industry. Though the law often requires the government to prove that defendants acted “knowingly”—a seeming protection from the imposition of strict liability—that requirement is but a parchment barrier. At the urging of prosecutors, judges have interpreted many of the statutes that apply to regulated industries so that those who participate in the industry are presumed to be knowledgeable of all the arcane regulatory intricacies that govern their conduct. As a consequence, the only requirement imposed by requiring proof that one has acted “knowingly” is that the government must demonstrate that the defendant has purposefully done the act constituting the offense—in other words, that the defendant was not sleepwalking, acting under some delusion, or the like at the time—and in the context of regulated economic conduct, that showing is trivial. Moreover, proof that the defendant in fact lacked knowledge of the regulatory requirement at issue is uniformly no defense to prosecution.

A typical example is the crime of “knowingly filing a false monitoring report” under the Clean Water Act. The law that defines what is false or misleading is part of a large regulatory scheme that also obligates each individual filing a report to ensure the accuracy of any reports made. As a consequence, the only showing the government must make to the satisfaction of a jury is that the defendant “knowingly filed” the report, irrespective of whether or not he knew it to be false, and because nobody files a report without doing so intentionally, the only showing necessary is that the defendant actually put a letter in the mail. As Justice Potter Stewart noted of defendants accused of such offenses, “[a]s a practical matter…they are under a species of absolute liability for violation of the regulations despite the ‘knowingly’ requirement.”

How Many Federal Crimes Are There?
All of this would be tolerable if it were in fact feasible for law-abiding citizens to know all that the law requires. If, for example, a person could know all of the regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act and every other statute, then it might be appropriate in some circumstances to charge individuals with the obligation of finding out what the rules are. Thus, it is assumed that a billiards player knows the rules, and they may be held against him whether or not he actually does.

But the premise of that argument is that it is possible to learn all of the rules—that there is some rule book to which one can refer before choosing to act. Sadly, in the criminal law of the United States, there is no such rule book. There is no place that an average American citizen can go to learn all of the criminal laws that may apply to his conduct.

In fact, no one even knows how many federal criminal laws there are, much less what they require. The last time the Congressional Research Service was asked to quantify the number of federal crimes, it told Congress that it could not do so with any certainty. The best recent estimate, by Louisiana State University Professor of Law John Baker, is that there are more than 4,500 criminal offenses contained in federal statutes—and even this estimate is already a half-decade old. All we know for sure is that the number of crimes grows every year.

How could it possibly be so challenging to count the number of federal crimes? In the past, it was not so difficult. Federal crimes were collected in one place—Title 18 of the U.S. Code, titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”—and so were easy to find. Today, however, federal crimes are scattered across almost all of the 51 titles of the Code, making it effectively impossible for an average citizen to find them all.

Nor is this problem limited to the federal criminal code. Often, a federal statute criminalizes violations of any requirements contained in agency regulations, and nobody has any idea how many regulations are subject to criminal enforcement. One expert, Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School, has estimated that there are more than 300,000 separate federal regulations that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution.

It is, if anything, even more difficult to count all the state laws and regulations. There are 50 state jurisdictions, with thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations. On top of that are untold thousands of city and county ordinances, many of which impose jail time for violations.

With the proliferation of criminal law, no American citizen can reasonably be expected to know all of the statutes that may apply. It may be that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but for virtually 100 percent of Americans, ignorance is the reality. As a result, according to Harvey Silverglate, a well-respected attorney and author, the average American may commit three felonies a day without even knowing it.

The fact that no one can even locate every criminal offense matters profoundly. Americans would not countenance hidden speed limits on the roads, because there would be no justice in punishing those who exceeded limits that they could not possibly know. Likewise, for criminal offenses that are effectively hidden, punishment is unjust.

The rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” was born at a time when there were fewer than a dozen common law felonies, and all those crimes stemmed from and mirrored a commonly shared moral code. Today, the criminal law is a collection of social preferences. Some of them are obvious and reflect common sense notions of wrongfulness, but many reflect only a legislative judgment. It may indeed be a bad idea to ride a manatee for fun, but it is unlikely that anyone would know it was a federal crime—until they read this paper or were prosecuted for it.

An Agenda for Change
The history of change in scienter requirements has been substantial. The criminal law today is far different from the criminal law of a century ago. For regulatory crimes, there is in effect a standard of near-absolute liability based on the no-longer-applicable maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” The tragedy is that while ignorance may not be an excuse, it is the reality for American citizens and even for their legislators. Americans are therefore asked to undertake an impossible task—knowing what conduct is allowed and what prohibited—and then punished when they fail. That is simply unjust.

This problem is not intractable and can be addressed in steps, beginning at the federal level. As an initial matter, Congress should demand that the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, or the executive branch identify and count all of the crimes in the U.S. Code. Once that is done, all of the crimes in the code should be consolidated or referenced in Title 18, accessible over the Internet without charge, and kept up-to-date.

Only then would American citizens have a fighting chance of understanding the law that regulates their conduct. Only then would it be possible for us again to expect citizens to know the law.

Top craziest laws still on the books Did you know it's illegal to educate dogs in Hartford, Connecticut? Or fall asleep under a hair dryer in Florida? In most states, you'll find a number of bizarre laws like these still exist on the books.

Motorists take heed: If you ever find yourself driving at night through rural parts of Pennsylvania, state law requires that you stop every mile to send up a rocket signal. It's true. And if you see a skittish team of horses coming toward you, be sure to take your car apart, piece by piece, and hide it under the nearest bushes—unless, of course, you want to be in violation of state law.

Seem implausible? Actually, this absurd Pennsylvania law is technically still on the books. Pennsylvania is not alone. If you look hard enough, each state has its own collection of outdated, silly laws. And while these laws may never be enforced, they are still legally valid because no one has bothered to repeal them. Most of these laws are so old, lawmakers themselves aren't even aware that many of them exist.

Have you broken any of these laws?

Let's take Missouri for example. Just so you know—you can't drive down the highway with an uncaged bear in your car. But if you happen to pass into Farmington, Connecticut, you will have to share the road with bovine travelers. In this city, cows have the same rights on the roads as do motorists.

When parking your elephant at a meter in Orlando, Florida, be sure to deposit the same amount of change as you would for a regular motor vehicle. And if you stop for a beer in North Dakota, don't expect to get any pretzels with your beverage. It's against the law in that state to serve beer and pretzels at the same time.

Blue Laws

Blue Laws are those established specifically to prohibit certain behavior on Sundays, or "God's Day." Although in general, few people strictly uphold the Sabbath anymore, many cities and towns across America still have legal reminders of this observance on the books. For example, in Salem, West Virginia, it's against the law to eat candy less than an hour and a half before church service.

In Winona Lake, Wisconsin, it is illegal to eat ice cream at a counter on Sunday. And don't expect to order a slice of cherry pie a la mode in Kansas on the Lord's Day. No restaurant is allowed to serve it unless they're willing to run afoul of local police. Marbles, dominoes, and yo-yos are also banned on Sundays in a handful of states.

Concerning man's best friend

If you are a dog owner, be sure to take care not to violate any of the numerous laws concerning your four-legged pal. If you're planning a short stint in Hartford, Connecticut, you might want to keep your dog's obedience training under wraps. It's against the law to educate dogs in that city.

In some places, it's also against the law to expose your dog to the hazards of smoking. In Illinois, for example, it's illegal to give lighted cigars to your pets—even if they do enjoy a good Cuban from time to time. If you happen to stay in Normal, Oklahoma, be sure to restrain yourself from teasing dogs by making ugly faces. You guessed it, that kind of inflammatory behavior is against the law.

Women and the law

Not surprisingly, many of the antiquated statutes passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s were aimed at protecting the fairer sex from unwanted attention or less-than-flattering reputations. For example, an old city ordinance in Cleveland, Ohio, prohibits women from wearing patent leather shoes in public. The reason? Shiny footwear could afford a nearby gentleman an unintentional peep show.

In many parts of the country, the price of beauty can be stiff. Women in Florida, for example, can be fined for falling asleep under a dryer in a hair salon. And if you're a single thrill-seeker, head some place else. The sunshine state also prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sundays.

Forget about trying to publicly adjust your stockings in either Dennison, Texas, or Bristol, Tennessee. Performing such a lewd act could land you a sentence of up to 12 months in the state penitentiary.

If you're a woman living in Michigan, you might want to check with your husband before heading to the hair stylist. According to state law, your hair belongs to your spouse and you'll need his permission before you can alter it. When visiting Charlotte, North Carolina, don't plan on packing light. According to city law, you must be swathed in at least 16 yards of fabric before stepping out into public. Even in fashion-forward New York City, there are laws concerning how a woman dresses. In the Big Apple, wearing clingy or body-hugging clothing carries a $25 dollar fine.

Not all old laws aimed at women are intended to preserve their virtue, however. Some were apparently designed to promote household hygiene and public safety. For example, Pittsburgh has a special cleaning ordinance on the books that bans housewives from hiding dirt under their rugs. And in Memphis, Tennessee, women can't drive a car unless there is a man with a red flag in front of the car warning the other people on the road.

The times are a-changing

One can easily conclude that some of these silly laws were simply designed to get a laugh or to alleviate the boredom of local legislators. How else could you explain the following Texas law? "When two railroad trains meet at a crossing, each shall stop and neither shall proceed until the other has passed." But as for the rest, you can rest assured they reflect the public standards of the time. If you want to study how public values have changed over the years, there is no better place to start than with your state and local statutes. Not only will you glean some insight into our past prejudices, but also our best intentions. After all, who but a well-intentioned public official would make it a crime to molest butterflies in California?

https://forestgrove.pgusd.org/documents/Computer-Lab/Strange-State-Laws.pdf

Here are some of the goofiest federal laws still on the books Woe unto him who makes an unsanctioned visit to his quarantined llama. He could soon find himself up to his neck in federal charges.

In America’s early days, the law was fairly simple. The Constitution specifies just three federal crimes: piracy, counterfeiting and treason.

Since then, however, the number of no-no’s has expanded by the millions, encompassing everything from how many beers you can drink while riding a bike in a national park (zero) to what shape margarine pats must be served in restaurants if they aren’t clearly labeled as margarine. (For God’s sake, triangles! A Hartford, Connecticut, restaurant owner was arrested in 1952 for serving square pats of margarine.)

The list has grown so long that you can now find yourself in violation of federal law for a host of things that you probably didn’t even know were crimes. Like that unsanctioned llama contact, which falls under 9 C.F.R. § 93.413 of the Animal Protection Act.

An amusing guide to some of the more bizarre statutes can be found in the new book “How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender.

Here are 10 ways you can live on the edge and run afoul of federal law:

Use a Falconry Bird in a Movie That Isn’t About Falconry That’s right. There are specific federal laws about what can and can’t happen in movies. (Where was the government when “Men in Black International” was being made?)

Even outside of movies, the law regulates how many birds someone is allowed to keep, as well as how long a falcon is allowed to stay with a non-falconer friend: 45 days, as it turns out.

And the Fed forbids falconers from letting their falcons appear in films that aren’t about falconry.

For a falcon to legally appear in a movie, that film must specifically concern the hobby or “the biology, ecological roles, and conservation needs of raptors and other migratory birds.”

“Even then, falconers can’t be paid for the performance,” Chase writes.

The prohibition has led to filmmakers using lookalike and CG birds.

Sell Runny Ketchup
Because watery ketchup isn’t really ketchup at all, the government regulates how thick the sauce must be.

The flow rate is measured by an instrument called a Bostwick consistometer. Basically, the ketchup is allowed to flow down a trough and an observer measures how far it can travel in 30 seconds. Any farther than 14 centimeters and it ain’t ketchup.

Ketchup that’s too runny must be slapped with a conspicuous “substandard” in 12- or 14-point type, according to the Feds.

And the government even regulates how to spell ketchup. Turns out there are just three permissible spellings: Ketchup (definitely!), Catsup (Ok, sure) and Catchup (sorry, wut?).

Leave the Country with Too Many Nickels in Your Pockets
Better check your pockets next time you head to the airport.

“Since 2006, a federal regulation has prohibited exporting pennies or nickels from the United States without a special license from the U.S. Mint,” Chase writes. “Under 31 U.S.C. § 5111(d)(2), doing so knowingly is a federal crime and is punishable by up to five years in prison.”

The question is, of course, how much change is too much. The law allows travelers (with seemingly very large pockets) to go abroad with up to $5 in pennies or nickels, or as much as $25 as long as the coins are for “legitimate personal numismatic, amusement, or recreational use.”

Sell Wine With a Label that Insults the Competition
If you’ve noticed a curious lack of smack talk on your merlot, there’s a reason. It’s a federal misdemeanor.

Statute 27 C.F.R. § 4.39(a)(2) forbids vino labels that are “disparaging of a competitor’s products.”

Wine makers are also forbidden from slapping their bottles with obscene material, and for making certain claims, such as that it will get you drunk or that it has curative properties.

Write a Check for Less Than $1
A person signs a check.
Getty Images
Could you really get sent to Sing-Sing for writing a personal check for 99 cents? (And for anyone under 30 years old, a “check” is a piece of paper that your grandparents used to pay for Ovaltine.)

Statute 18 U.S.C. § 336 makes it a federal crime to issue “any note, check, memorandum, token, or other obligation for a less sum than $1” in lieu of money.
The Feds probably won’t bust down your door for breaking this rule, according to Chase. The statute was written in 1862 at a time when the value of the metal in coins exceeded their face value, leading some Americans to hoard change.

To facilitate transactions, some retailers started issuing their own notes or tokens for use as change.

“But the government didn’t take kindly to the idea of competing currencies, so Congress passed the Stamp Payments Act, making the issuance of private small denomination currency a federal crime,” the author writes.

In 1874, a Michigan furnace store employee was indicted for circulating a note from the store that promised the retailer would pay 50 cents to the bearer. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled the law wasn’t about store credit and was only meant to prevent the circulation of private currencies.

Make an Unreasonable Gesture to a Passing Horse
Central Park horse-drawn carriages pick up customers on 59th Street in New York.
Corbis via Getty Images
True, this only concerns horses in a national park (you’re free to flip the bird to horses on private land), but still. What the heck?

Chase writes that the law doesn’t specify what constitutes “unreasonable,” and when the Park Service was considering amending the law in 1983, a member of the public complained — rightfully — that the rule was a bit vague.

Now, the law has been amended to prohibit unreasonable gestures “considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person.”

Whatever that means. Just be polite to horses, folks.

Sell Oversized or Undersized Noodles
A stock image closeup of pasta.
iStockphoto
Title 21, Part 139, of the Code of Federal Regulations sets rigid standards for the specifications of noodles — though on just four varieties.

It requires macaroni to be tube-shaped and have a diameter between 0.11 and 0.27 inches.

Spaghetti must be tube- or cord-shaped and have a diameter between 0.06 and 0.11 inches, while vermicelli must be cord-shaped with a diameter less than 0.06 inches.

As for egg noodles, they simply must be ribbon-shaped.

Curiously, The Man has nothing to say about every other variety of pasta.

“How many twists must a rotini have?” Chase writes. “Whose ears must orecchiette look like? Alphabet pasta can presumably be in any font, and there are no federal limits on the maximum diameter of a manicotti.”

Try to Make it Rain With Lasers Without Telling the Government First
Mike Meyers Stars As "Dr. Evil" In "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me."
Getty Images
Bad news for James Bond villains. Monkeying with the weather is strictly prohibited.

The rule has its origins during the Vietnam War, when the United States spent millions trying to figure out how to create downpours over strategic enemy sites.

When that information leaked in the press, Congress enacted 15 U.S.C. § 330a, which says that “no person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States” without notifying the secretary of commerce. Violators could be slapped with a fine of up to $10,000.

Sell Swiss Cheese Without Holes
Sliced fresh Swiss cheese.
iStockphoto
In the same way that ketchup isn’t ketchup unless you break your hand trying to get it out of the bottle, Swiss cheese isn’t Swiss without its holes.

The holes are known as “eyes,” and a cheese without them is called “blind.”

Federal law mandates that Swiss must have eyes that have “developed throughout the cheese,” apparently saving consumers from a cheese with uneven holes that could vary from bite to bite.

Have Disruptively Bad Hygiene in the Library of Congress
The reading room of the Library of Congress.
Getty Images
Better hit the showers before you hit the stacks.

Under 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(C), an offender can be punished by up to six months in prison for disturbing readers with “offensive personal hygiene.”

As Chase points out, the law provides no guidance on what constitutes “offensive.” To borrow a famous Supreme Court litmus test: You’ll know it when you smell it.

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
847.0145 Selling or buying of minors; penalties.—
(1) Any parent, legal guardian, or other person having custody or control of a minor who sells or otherwise transfers custody or control of such minor, or offers to sell or otherwise transfer custody of such minor, either:
(a) With knowledge that, as a consequence of the sale or transfer, the minor will be portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct; or
(b) With intent to promote either:
1. The engaging in of sexually explicit conduct by such minor for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct; or
2. The rendering of assistance by the minor to any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct;
shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Whoever purchases or otherwise obtains custody or control of a minor, or offers to purchase or otherwise obtain custody or control of a minor, either:
(a) With knowledge that, as a consequence of the purchase or obtaining of custody, the minor will be portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct;
(b) With intent to promote either:
1. The engaging in of sexually explicit conduct by such minor for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct; or
2. The rendering of assistance by the minor to any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct;
shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. History.—s. 2, ch. 88-283.

Cops in Alaska have started enforcing a statute that makes it illegal to be drunk in a bar, and have been sending plainclothes officers into bars to identify and arrest suspects.

"It's fairly logical, but it does sound fairly comical at the outset," Anchorage Police Department Lt. Dave Parker told ABCNews.com. "Alaska has a huge, huge alcohol problem. Most people in jail, whatever they did, their decision making process was affected by alcohol."

"There are three problems in Alaska: alcohol, alcohol and alcohol," Parker said.

Though the law prohibiting a drunken person from being on licensed premises has been in existence for years, it is only in the past month that police have been aggressively enforcing it.

Plainclothes police officers enter bars and look for people who are what they call "drunk-plus."

"We're not dealing with a person who's simply mildly intoxicated or out having a good time. We're dealing with people who are so intoxicated that they can't care for themselves," Parker said. "The bartender or person selling is making money off of them and they either become the victim or the perpetrator of a crime."

In Alaska, It's Illegal to Be Drunk in a Bar

If the plainclothes officers spot someone excessively intoxicated—falling off their barstool, vomiting or engaging on overly rowdy behavior, for example—they call in uniformed officers to make an arrest. After the sobering experience of being arrested, the suspects are cited and then released.

After checking 26 Anchorage bars recently, four had employees that were out of compliance and 19 "highly intoxicated" patrons were cited.

"If it's not blatant, they don't intervene by citing or making an arrest," Parker said. "They might warn a person. It's not a 'gotcha' thing. We're trying to modify behavior of bars that are over-serving and make the clientele aware."

Alaska rates number one in the United States in sexual assault reports per capita, Parker said. In about 86 percent of those assaults, alcohol is a factor. In Anchorage, a town of roughly 270,000 people, almost one percent of the population is arrested every year for driving while intoxicated.

"Alcohol is fueling. It's not the cause, but it's fueling most of the crime we're dealing with," Parker said. "If you're at home, you go to bed and get up with a bad hangover. If you're at a bar, you've got to get home and you could be a sexual assault victim, get in a car to drive drunk or get in a fight."

Parker said that it is too soon to tell whether the strategy is working to reduce other crimes.

"It's a little early to tell, but we anticipate it will," he said. "Anytime we start aggressively enforcing alcohol laws, we see a reduction in crime. People are being more responsible because they know they can get in trouble."

Bar owners have mixed feeling about the police action.

Darwin Biwer is the owner of downtown Anchorage bar Darwin's Theory. He is also the board chairman of the Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant and Retailer's Association.

"None of us bar owners have a problem with the police coming through. We've encouraged that for years," Biwer said. "But you can't tell me the cops know better who's drunk on premises [than we do]."

Alaska requires servers to be trained to recognize people who have too much to drink and stop serving them. Under the law, servers and bartenders can also be arrested and cited for over-serving.

The general principal of law is that “ignorance of law is not an excuse” i.e. maxim IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSANT which, means that if someone breaks the law, he or she is still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken. In the application of the maxim the word “ignorantia” has been translated as “ignorance” and as “mistake”; and these terms have generally been used interchangeably. However, that the two English words convey different ideas, which difference has been recognized in some instances. “Ignorance” may be defined as lack of knowledge; whereas a” mistake” is a wrong conclusion frequently caused by insufficient knowledge.

The maxim was originally formulated at a time when the list of crimes, broadly speaking, represented current morality. The exception to the maxim was created by the courts due to change of time the modern company and corporate laws/regulations/rules came into play for corporate liabilities.

The exception in the rule laid down by maxim IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSANT has been created by courts worldwide in certain circumstances. The Courts have accepted ignorance of law as an excuse or refused to impose penalty when the violation of law was not deliberate or was innocently violated. The general rule is not applied where defendant’s mistake of law must be reasonable. However, the defense of mistake of law applies in cases where the mistake of law has to be honest and made in good faith. In England the Maxim is applied only when facts and circumstances justify its application. The same position is taken by American Courts and have been followed by Indian and Pakistani Courts in some circumstances. The position of law in different jurisdictions have been briefly explained with case laws below.

Position of English Law in common law jurisdiction: In England the Maxim is applied only when facts and circumstances justify its application. Over a hundred and thirty years ago Maula J. pointed out that “… there is no presumption in this country that every person knows the law, it would be contrary to common sense and reason if it were so….” [ref: Martindalev. Falkner [1846] 2 CB 706]. Justice Lush observed “there is no maxim which says that for all intents and purposes a person must be taken to know the legal consequences of his acts…” [ref: R v Tewkesbury corporation (LR 3 QB 629)]. The great common law judge of the 20th century Lord Atkin observed in Evans Vs Bartam that ““The fact is that there is no and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse a maxim of very different scope and application”. According to Lord Westbury the word “Jus” in the maxim ignorantia juris excusant is used in the sense of “general law, the law of the country,” not in the sense of “a private right.” The true meaning of that maxim is that parties cannot excuse themselves of liability from all civil or criminal consequences of their acts by alleging ignorance of the law, but there is no presumption that parties must be taken to know all the legal consequences of their acts, and especially where difficult questions of law, or of the practice of the court are involved”” [ref; Cooper v. Phibbs, L. R. 2 H. L. 170]. Lord Westbury in Spread V Morgan 11 HL case 588(602) observed “… it is true that the law will not permit the excuse of ignorance of law to be pleaded for the purpose of exempting persons from damages for breach of contract or for crimes committed by them but on other occasions and for other purposes it is evident that such ignorance existed will sometimes be recognized so as to affect a judicial decision”.

It speculates on the potential consequences of the infamous Great Reset, medical tyranny, woke culture, and green agenda. Everything, that World Economic Forum (WEF) is planning for us. Death To You And Your Family... Its For The Greater Good. Death To You And America... Its For The Greater Good. Its A Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People... Yes Its For The Greater Good. Y

Show less