Leichter wrote:

...

Sorry but if you can't see the written law, promulgated regulation, or included by reference junk, even as an indigent for lols, then it doesn't exist, you don't have to comply with it, and can't be prosecuted for it. There is a very famous guy (can't find link) who goes around suing FOIA / States / Jurisdictions over this bullshit secret law proprietary copyright trademark access fee crap, and winning.

You're thinking of Carl Malamud ... who as it happens just *lost* a case in US District Court against Georgia, whose full official laws, in hardcopy, were only available to him from LexisNexis for $1,207.02. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/public-records-activist-violated...

There are many state laws a regulations that "include by reference" standards published by various organizations who sell them for large amounts of money. Yes, you are legally responsible for working within the standards.

If people want to be apologists for the Secret Arbitrary Control Profit State, they exactly deserve what they get, and such things do and will affect you eventually. oh, are you going to praise the $1000 it costs you do buy the driver / tax / employment / marriage "law". If you can't see, read, debate, contest and ply to modify the entirety of the law, freely, even as a $broke bum on the street, it's not a law. This is absolutely fundamental principle and requirement of working "democracy", among other memes. Otherwise you're a subject of tyranny of elites who don't give a fuck about you. Nobody cares it you take the public body of law, *add* your own annotations, work, etc, and resell that product... that is *not* law. Of course Malamud will lose that. However that's entirely different than the law public itself, including all "included by references", etc. If it is work product of Legislative, Judicial, Executive branches, it must be free and freely available, and so must all such deliberated included's... this is fundamental here. If you have to pay to see that which you must comply with, it isn't law, and you have a rock solid case to ignore it, unless of course too many apologists have made that slippery slope happen, for which you're doomed. You're a complete fool to comply with a "law" you cannot freely read for free. Show me the law, I'll make my own damn "annotations".