If you think about it logically, many reasonable and critical thinking individuals would probably say that we can boil everything down to only three general causes for why an executive official, law enforcement officer, or a judicial court, would make an incorrect interpretation or ruling in a case involving the correct interpretation and application of actual written law, those three being ignorance, incompetence, or corruption, generally speaking. However, I believe that the facts can be further boiled down to the point where only one of these is actually correct. Let me try to explain, logically, why I believe that is.
Let us begin with the cause of ignorance. We can presume as fact that no politically savvy executive official or judicial officer, in general, is ever going to admit to being ignorant or incompetent of the written law, or of any ‘controlling’ court opinions relative to the interpretation of that law. Because this is the presumed norm, the various Bar Associations would have us all believe that our judicial functionaries, the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and corporate legal counsels, have a professional, ethical, and moral duty and obligation to ‘know’ the law and to know it substantially better than any executive functionary or layman (yeah, they call us the laymen). This presumption alone is reason enough to put forth the argument that no judicial officer can be reasonably presumed to be ignorant of what any part of the law actually says or means, especially when that particular area of law is their publicly proclaimed and advertised ‘specialty.’ But, then again, what can you logically expect from a group of individuals who serve their own private interests while literally having official and functional control over every high office in every department and agency within every single level of our government?
Now, my personal interpretation of “knowing” something as important as the law and how it is supposed to function is that one actually spends countless hours expending and expanding brain cells over many long hours, days, months, or years in research and study of the law itself and its legislative and interpretative history so as to truly have a deeper knowledge and understanding of what it actually says and means according to the combined whole of all relevant statues applicable to that particular object or subject matter area relative to any individual provision. The deeper meaning of my interpretation and understanding will be made clear when you read the literal meaning of the phrase the whole of the law a little further on. What is important right now is understanding that the highly presumptive and false belief that there really is a deeper “knowing” and understanding of the law by those serving as judges and attorneys is being marketed to the masses as a sound and logical reason to entrust our very lives and property to these individuals (which is an egregious mistake) rather than trying to handle things for ourselves when it comes to our personal and business affairs or actions within the courts (which may also be a mistake depending upon one’s personal aptitude for studying and figuring out how the system actually works and why).
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?
Using this logic, combined with the aforementioned legal maxim, I assert that, as the public at large cannot be presumed to be ignorant of the law, then by no means can any possible level of ignorance be presumed or allowed to exist for those in any department of government, especially within the judiciary. For it is the members of the judiciary for whom extensively learning and understanding the whole of the laws is a mandatory prerequisite in order to fulfill their primary function and reason for existence, the proper interpretation of the laws in accordance with all constitutional protections and prohibitions. This does not simply mean the learning and understanding of the individual statutes, but also how those statutes overlap and are intertwined by any object or subject matter relationship(s) with any others, even those of other statutory schemes that may exist within and across multiple sections of the same or other statutory code(s). THIS level of knowledge and understanding about all of these various statutory interactions and relational dependencies is what is meant by the judicially-coined phrase the whole of the law. Thus, if a government actor cannot be reasonably presumed to be ignorant about something that it is their primary duty to fully learn and understand, and yet, that government actor is still allowed to continuously misunderstand, misapply, and misuse virtually everything related thereto, then the correct presumption of the cause cannot be that the government actor is simply acting out of ignorance of such things.
Consider this, if those in charge over an individual governmental actor ever repeatedly tried to correct the actor’s improper understanding and application of a particular law or a duty imposed by a law, and the actor still continues to do everything or any part thereof incorrectly, then they are de facto incompetent because they are demonstrably untrainable, as shown by the fact that all attempts to properly train and correct their flawed understanding and actions have failed. By that same reasoning, if the incompetent individual’s superior(s) never recognized and made the effort to correct the underling’s improper understanding and behavior, then they too are demonstrably incompetent for exactly the same reasons. Thus, if the individual actors at either level are determined to be wholly incompetent in this manner, then they cannot be classified as simply ignorant nor rely upon its assertion as a viable excuse. Thus, logically, ignorance can no longer be considered as one of the three possible causes for why so many of those within the executive department keep misapplying and misusing the laws or why those in the judiciary keep creating precedent-setting opinions about the constitutions or the laws that time and time again are demonstrably incorrect and illogical either in whole or in part.
Having now logically eliminated the possibility of ignorance being a contributing cause for any executive or judicial functionary’s failure to properly interpret and apply the law, we are left with two remaining choices, incompetence or corruption. However, just as before, I assert that incompetence, in and of itself, is also a logical impossibility as the cause for such failures.
For instance, if an executive functionary or a judge is offered a demonstrably true and wholly viable and verifiable alternative interpretation of the law that fully meshes with the whole of the law as previously described, and that the existing executive interpretation or judicial precedent can be reasonably shown to not be true precisely because it does not fully mesh with the whole of the law, but, the executive functionary or judge refuses to acknowledge, accept, or even investigate and research the legal basis supporting the factual challenge to the existing and legally incorrect (bad) interpretation or precedent in order to continue applying the bad interpretation or precedent despite the facts and evidence, then neither the executive functionary nor the judge is applying the actual law to the facts or the facts to the actual law. What either governmental actor is really doing in this scenario is ignoring and avoiding his/her duty to know, understand, and apply the law as a whole, and by doing so, is applying only that which s/he has already been shown to be a completely incorrect interpretation of the law. Thus, these governmental actors have decided to treat the bad interpretation/precedent as being the only thing that is legally relevant and necessary for consideration in order to render their decision. In other words, the governmental actor has just declared that the law as it was written and intended to be interpreted and applied by the legislature be damned, regardless of the facts and evidence to the contrary, as s/he is going to follow the prior interpretation or precedent of another government official or court that also completely ignored the requirement to understand and apply the whole of the law that resulted in the incorrect understanding and interpretation of the Legislature’s original purpose and intent for the law in the first place.
Now, anyone in the legal field with a working brain will tell you that knowingly acting in bad faith under any legitimate set of circumstances or in violation of the law is an act of willful intent. Thus, by willfully choosing to ignore the newly presented facts and evidence refuting the legal foundation of any prior executive interpretation or judicial precedent, the executive functionary or judicial officer is acting with knowing and willful intent, not ignorance or incompetence, for the express purpose of ignoring the existing relevant law in order to reach a conclusion s/he now knows to be completely incongruous with the law itself. Thus, if these governmental actors cannot be presumed to be acting out of ignorance or incompetence to make such an unlawful determination or ruling in the face of countermanding facts and evidence, then the only cause remaining as motivation for the act is corruption. These facts are irrefutable. The executive functionary or the judge of the court is knowingly and willfully ignoring the proper legislative intent, purpose, and interpretation of the law for one that s/he now knows to be legally incorrect in order to achieve an outcome favorable to the functionary’s/judge’s own ego, reputation, and career interests and not to the rightful party who should be prevailing on the merits according to the law. This can only mean that these governmental actors have acted in favor of their own personal and political self-interests while knowingly and willfully depriving that same rightful party of their full and proper right to due process and remedy under the law. This is a criminal act if ever there was one.
Let us also not forget that these corrupt individuals are often not prosecuted because some County or District Attorney has decided to make the specious claim that a particular governmental actor’s actions “do not rise to the level of criminality.” This argument is completely nonsensical when used here in Texas, as we have two statutes making virtually any unconstitutional or unlawful actions perpetrated by a public servant that violates the rights of the people under our constitution and laws into a criminal act, causing said action to unquestionably “rise to the level of criminality” under our law. But those two statutes are all but totally ignored when seeking to criminally charge and prosecute such individuals. Even criminal acts explicitly codified within the Texas Penal code are often intentionally overlooked or outright ignored by prosecutors when it comes down to charging a public servant with an actual crime.
This can only mean that prosecutors are knowingly playing favorites and protecting real criminals who just happen to serve within the ranks of government under an official title while literally throwing every single charge they can come up with at any of the rest of us that may run afoul of the system in even the most minor degree, even when we are actually innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. This is especially true when they are trying to engage in a cover up to protect another public employee or official. Not only do they charge and prosecute us, they secret, tamper with, destroy, or fabricate from whole cloth, the very evidence that is used, as applicable, to either convict us or potentially or completely exonerate us and set us free. These foxes have not only created a system that puts them directly in charge of the hen house, but that also gives them full control of the whole chicken yard to the degree that they are answerable to virtually no one. This same system also puts them in charge of determining their own immunity, culpability, and liability in having to answer for any chickens that go missing or that later turn up dead or injured should the foxes ever actually find it necessary to calm and assuage the vitriol and ire of the masses by putting on a show of doing so (Derek Chauvin vs. George Floyd anyone??), and that’s just not a reasonable way of doing things, or allowing them to be done, much less a proper way to run a productive hen house and chicken yard.
Lest you forget, abusing the powers of one’s official office for personal gain or to harm the rights of the people to whom you took an oath and swore to protect is outright corruption and criminality on its face.
See, I told you that there was really only one logical cause for our executive and judicial officers to be making so many fundamentally bad interpretations and precedent-setting decisions.