Following All of the Rules

-- By JessicaHallett - 25 Feb 2010

Joseph Stack

In a letter written before his death, Joe Stack wrote of the tax activities that led to run-ins with the IRS: “We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done. “ Mr. Stack educated himself on the relevant law, and in reliance on it, took steps to avoid paying taxes. However, he soon found out that “there are two ‘interpretations’ for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us.” According to his letter, Mr. Stack paid for this transgression with tens of thousands of dollars and years of his life. A situation where a person who makes every effort to stay within the boundaries of the law, by learning it closely and following it precisely, yet is punished for breaking it, warrants a look at what the law expects and assumes about our knowledge.

Knowledge of the Law: Doctrinal Clash

Two Doctrines

It is useful to consider two doctrines to understand how the current system contains some irreconcilable tensions. The first is that one cannot be punished for something that is not against the law. The second is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The very existence of a law is seen as “notice” that some activity is prohibited; as such, the law assumes that the law is known by all. The two come into conflict, however, when people are punished for reliance on the very law they are expected to know.

An Irreconcilable Tension

Mr. Stack’s case provides a compelling example of how the two doctrines can come sharply to a head: how can a person be expected to know the law to the letter, but then be punished for relying on the same? In his case, strict reliance on the law is nonetheless illegal (at least according to one “interpretation”). In such a case, the only way a truly informed person can be expected to conform in the “correct” standard must be in knowing that his actions were somehow “wrong”. There are also instances when a person is found guilty of an expanded or new law when he should reasonably have expected that it would be expanded- thus, he has “notice” in that he should have known.

Inconsistent Decisions

Some cases shed light on this tension between an obligation to know the law and reliance on the law, and there are inconsistencies in how the law expects us to act. In Bryan v. United States, the defendant had to know that his conduct was unlawful, but not the existence of the statute with which he was charged, to be convicted. Evidence suggested that he knew his behavior was unlawful (he shaved off guns’ serial numbers, for instance), and it was in acting with an “evil-meaning mind” that he was found guilty. In Liparota v United States the defendant had to know the existence and meaning of the law his act violated. In Lambert v. California the court held that the defendant had to have known of her duty to register as a felon to be convicted for failure to do so; State v. Bryant, on the other hand, held that the defendant should have inquired into the law, and as such was convicted. United States v. Dauray and Keeler v. Superior Court both found against construing laws such that they would lead to convictions, where it would not be “fair notice” to do so. In contrast, Rogers v. Tennessee held that despite defendant’s actions being subject to a law that would preclude a murder charge, he should have known that the law was changing in other jurisdictions, and thus should have expected his actions to be unlawful.

The Legal Fiction of Knowledge of the Law: Conclusions

What can be drawn from these inconsistent decisions? The law holds us to a double standard in which sometimes we are expected to know the law, and other times are punished for reliance. The purpose of a theory of presumed knowledge might be to encourage people to actually know¬ and learn the law; in reality, the doctrine of ignorance being no excuse prompts people to act in ways to ensure that their behavior is not illegal. In doing so, people rely on their own sense of right and wrong. In this way, the law relies on people filling in the gap of knowledge with some form of morality or a sense of what “should” or “probably” is illegal (which can only come from some inner conscience, if not external rules), or assumes that there are circumstances under which it is universally true that a person would be inclined to investigate the law further. The problem there is that this assumes some universal moral sense, or universal code of ethics that is untenable.

As a result, there is punishment when a person acted seemingly lawfully, and exculpation at times when a person behaved in ways that were clearly beyond the spirit of the law, but where “fair notice” requires that they should not be punished. Both are legal fictions: in the first case, people do not know the details of the law, and in the second case, “fair notice” is a fiction because the person did not act in reliance on the law. This combination of legal fictions, inconsistent requirements, and the substitution of law with morality in cases where lack of knowledge leaves a gap to be filled combine for an unclear system. If there is to be no punishment without law, the law must speak clearly: the legal fictions need to be eliminated, and a clear, practical development of what we are expected to know and are entitled to rely on needs to emerge. If, like Mr. Stack, we follow all of the rules, and still get burned, the law sets forth an impossible double standard.