No one claimed that this was part of the criminal code.
Are you implying that federal civil code can simply be chosen to be ignored by states, counties, and municipalities at will?
Claiming that statutes simply don't apply if ignorance is claimed is a foolish position to take in an argument. Especially If that 'ignorance' is willful.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for 'ignorance of the law excuses not'),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ('ignorance of law excuses no one'),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ('nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law')[3] or ignorantia iuris nocet ('not knowing the law is harmful').[4]
en.wikipedia.org
Do please tell me that this
isn't the foundation of your argumentative position.
If it is, it is a terrible weak one on which to base a position.
Oh do please cite the court precedent here.
The case appears to be different than what you are claiming it is.
Sanctuary status isn't an issue in this case, so '
Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.'
This is nothing more than your guess or / or your wish.
The only court judgements in your cited article are:
- After inspecting his birth certificate, Leon County Judge LaShawn Riggans said during the hearing that “this is indeed an authentic document,”
- she did not have jurisdiction beyond finding no probable cause for the charge.
Nothing about the constitution, nothing about previous federal judicial orders to 'not to enforce the State Law'. You are only 1/2 supporting your argument here.
Total fail. Nothing which I have cited in the post you responded to came from Fox News.