easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,105
- 2,645
"Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because one was unaware of its content.
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does 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.
In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials." (This means the punishment for one found guilty of breaking the law but claiming ignorance of the law can be lessened, NOT that ignorance of the law can allow such a person NOT to be charged with the crime).
TRANSLATION: Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".
All of this means that Ex-FBI Director Comey was admittedly negligent in carrying out his duties, exercised powers he did not have as Director of the FBI by taking it upon himself to refuse to recommend indictment and charges being filed against Hillary Clinton for the crimes he testified before Congress under oath Hillary Clinton committed.
Comey declared Hillary DID indeed break laws and endangered national security but that he decided she was too stupid to understand she was doing so. Ignorance - even stupidity - is NOT a 'get out of jail free' card, and it was not within Comey's power to make the decision he would grant her such.
If for no other reason, Comey's admission that he inappropriately shielded Hillary Clinton from rightful indictment and prosecution for her crimes is more than justification enough for his being fired.
His actions, as well could merit his investigation regarding his motivation for aiding and abetting (protecting) a 'criminal' in getting away with her crime.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does 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.
In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials." (This means the punishment for one found guilty of breaking the law but claiming ignorance of the law can be lessened, NOT that ignorance of the law can allow such a person NOT to be charged with the crime).
TRANSLATION: Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the "prohibition of ignorance of the law".
All of this means that Ex-FBI Director Comey was admittedly negligent in carrying out his duties, exercised powers he did not have as Director of the FBI by taking it upon himself to refuse to recommend indictment and charges being filed against Hillary Clinton for the crimes he testified before Congress under oath Hillary Clinton committed.
Comey declared Hillary DID indeed break laws and endangered national security but that he decided she was too stupid to understand she was doing so. Ignorance - even stupidity - is NOT a 'get out of jail free' card, and it was not within Comey's power to make the decision he would grant her such.
If for no other reason, Comey's admission that he inappropriately shielded Hillary Clinton from rightful indictment and prosecution for her crimes is more than justification enough for his being fired.
His actions, as well could merit his investigation regarding his motivation for aiding and abetting (protecting) a 'criminal' in getting away with her crime.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia
