"It is an emphatic postulate of both civil and penal law that ignorance of a law is no excuse for a violation thereof. Of course it is based on a fiction, because no man can know all the law, but is a maxim which the law itself does not permit any one to gainsay. It is expected that the jury and the court, where it is shown that in fact the defendant was ignorant of the law, and innocent of any intention to violate the same, will give the defendant the benefit of the fact, and impose only a light penalty. (1 Bishop's Crim. Law, sec. 2961; Wharton on Negligence, sec. 411.) The rule rests on public necessity; the welfare of society and the safety of the state depend upon its enforcement. If a person accused of a crime could shield himself behind the defense that he was ignorant of the law which he violated, immunity from punishment would in most cases result. No system of criminal justice could be sustained with such an element in it to obstruct the course of its administration. The plea would be universally made, and would lead to interminable questions incapable of solution. Was the defendant in fact ignorant of the law? Was his ignorance of the law excusable? The denser the ignorance the greater would be the exemption from liability...."
People v. O'Brien (1892), 96 Cal. 171, 176.

But these days, with everyone running frantically in the commercial "rat-race", who has the time? I did for a while, so I have placed the results of my research here.
My comments are in brackets [] and I have used boldface to emphasize certain items.

WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, CONSTITUTION (1999), Article 3, Section 5:

"Sec. 5. Suits may be brought against the state in such manner and in such courts as shall be directed by law."

"A public entity may sue and be sued. (Added by Stats. 1963, c. 1715, p. 3383, sec. 2.)"

[An 1824 United States Supreme Court case held:

It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any traditional company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. Thus, many states of this Union who have an interest in banks, are not suable even in their own courts; yet they never exempt the corporation from being sued. The state of Georgia, by giving to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips itself of its sovereign character, so far as respects the transaction of the bank, and waives all the privileges of that character. As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises its sovereignty. It acts merely as a corporator, and exercises no other power in the management of the affairs of the corporation, than are expressly given by the incorporating act. ...
"Suits brought by or against it [The Bank of the United States] are not understood to be brought by or against the United States. The government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transaction of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter. (information in brackets and emphasis added) The Bank of the United States v. The Planter's Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed 244.

This United States Supreme Court case seems to accurately portray the Government's position after 1933:]

"...It is too late in the day to urge that the Government is just another private litigant, for purposes of charging it with liability, whenever it takes over a business theretofore conducted by private enterprise or engages in competition with private ventures. [Footnote 1. Judging from the legislative history of the Act, the Government engaged in crop insurance as a pioneer. Private insurance companies apparently deemed all-risk crop insurance too great a commercial hazard. See Report and Recommendations of the President's Committee on Crop Insurance, H. Doc. No. 150, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2Y4, 11Y12; H. Rep. No. 1479, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2; 81 Cong. Rec. 2866, 2867, 2887, 2891, 2893, 2895; Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on S. 1397, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 125, 185. But this does not affect the legal issues. It merely underscores the fact that the undertaking by the Government is not an ordinary commercial undertaking, and thereby reenforces the conclusion that the rules of law whereby private insurance companies are rendered liable for the acts of their agents are not bodily applicable to a Government agency like the Corporation, unless Congress has so provided.] Government is not partly public or partly private, depending upon the governmental pedigree of the type of a particular activity or the man- [384] ner in which the Government conducts it. The Government may carry on its operations through conventional executive agencies or through corporate forms especially created for defined ends. See Keifer & Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp., 306 U. S. 381, 390, 518. Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 409, 391; United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 70, 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666." Federal Crop Ins. Corporation v. Merrill (1947), 332 U. S. 380, 383-384.

In 1995, the United States Supreme Court set out a history of the creation of Federal Corporations. [Wherever you see "Amtrak", think "other similar Government-created Corporation".]

...In considering the question before us, it is useful to place Amtrak within its proper context in the long history of corporations created and participated in by the United States for the achievement of governmental objectives.
The first was the Bank of the United States, created by the Act of Feb. 25, 1791, ch 10, 1 Stat 191, which authorized the United States to subscribe 20 percent of the corporation's stock, id. at 196. That Bank expired pursuant to the terms of its authorizing Act 20 years later. A second Bank of the United States, the bank of McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 4 L Ed 579 (1819), and Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat 738, 6 L Ed 204 (1824), was incorporated by the Act of April 10, 1816, 3 Stat 266, which provided that the United States would subscribe 20 percent of the Bank's capitol stock, ibid., and in addition that the President would appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 5 of the Bank's 25 directors,...
The second Bank's charter expired of its own force, despite fierce efforts by the Bank's supporters to renew it, in 1836. ... During the remainder of the 19th century, the Federal Government continued to charter private corporations, see, e.g., Act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat 365 (Northern Pacific Railroad Company), but only once participated in such a venture itself: the Union Pacific Railroad, chartered in 1862 with the specification that two of its directors would be appointed by the President of the United States. Act of July 1, 1861, sec. 1, 12 Stat 491. ...
The Federal Government's first participation in a corporate enterprise in which ... it appointed a majority of the directors did not occur until the present century. ... See Act of June 28, 1902, 32 Stat 481; see also General Accounting Office, Reference Manual of Government Corporations, S Doc No 86, 79th Con, 1st Sess, 176 (1945) (hereinafter GAO Corporation Manual). The United States became the sole shareholder of the Panama Railroad, and continued to operate it under its original charter, with the Secretary of War, as holder of the stock, electing the Railroad's 13 directors. Id., at 177; ...
The first large-scale use of Government-controlled corporations came with the First World War. In 1917 and 1918 Congress created, among others, the United States Grain Corporation, the United States Emergency Fleet Corporation, the United States Spruce Production Corporation, and the War Finance Corporation. ...These entities were dissolved after the war ended. ...
See R. Moe, CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report for Congress, Administering Public Function at the Margins of Government: The Case of Federal Corporations 6-7 (1983). ... The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), was established to hold and liquidate the assets of failed banks, and to insure bank deposits. See Act of June 16, 1933, ch 89, sec. 8, 48 Stat 168, as amended, 12 USC sec. 1811 et seq. (1988 ed and Supp V)... .] And a few corporations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), brought the Government into the commercial sale of goods and services. See Act of May 18, 1933, ch 32, 48 Stat 58, as amended, 16 USC sec. 831 et seq. (1988 ed and Supp V)... .
The growth of federal corporations during the Depression and the World War II era was not limited to the numerous entities specifically approved by Congress. In 1940, Congress empowered the RFC [Reconstruction Finance Corporation] to create corporations without specific congressional authorization. See Act of June 25, 1940, sec. 5, 54 Stat 573-574. The RFC proceeded to do so with gusto, incorporating on its own the Defense Plant Corporation, the Defense Supplies Corporation, the Metals Reserve Corporation..., the Petroleum Reserves Corporation, the Rubber Development Corporation, and the War Damage Corporation, among others. See GAO Corporation Manual 32, 38, 169, 182, 219, 279. Other corporations were formed, sometimes under state law, without even the general congressional authorization granted the RFC. For example, the Defense Homes Corporation was organized under Maryland law by the Secretary of the Treasury, ... By 1945, the General Accounting Office's Reference Manual of Government Corporations listed 58 government corporations, ...
By the end of World War II, Government-created and -controlled corporations had gotten out of hand, in both their number and the lack of accountability. Congress moved to reestablish order in the Government Corporation Control Act (GCCA), 59 Stat 597 (1945), as amended, 31 USC secs 9190 et seq. (1988 ed and Supp V)... . The GCCA required that specified corporations, both wholly owned and partially owned by the Government, be audited by the Comptroller General. See 59 Stat., at 599, 600. ... The Act also ordered the dissolution or liquidation of all government corporations created under state law, except for those that Congress should act to reincorporate; and prohibited creation of new Government corporations without specific congressional authorization. 59 Stat, at 602; cf. 31 USC sec. 9102... .
...In the 1960's, however, the allure of the corporate form was felt again, and new entities proliferated. Many of them followed the traditional model, often explicitly designated as Government agencies and located within the existing Government structure. See, e.g., Foreign Assistance Act of 1969, sec 105, 83 Stat 809 ... as amended, 22 USC secs. 2191 et seq.... Beginning in 1962, however, the Government turned to sponsoring corporations which it specifically designated not to be agencies or establishments of the United States Government, and declined to subject to the control mechanisms of the GCCA. The first of these, ... was incorporated under the District of Columbia Business Corporation Act, DC Code sec. 29-301 et seq. (1981 and Supp 1994), see 47 USC secs. 731 et seq. ... with the pupose of entering the private sector, but doing so with Government-conferred advantages. ...
The ... model, which was seen as allowing the Government to act unhindered by the restraints of bureaucracy and politics, ... was soon followed in creating other corporations. But some of these new "private" corporations, though said by their charters not to be agencies or instrumentalities of the Government, ... and though not subjected to the restrictions of the GCCA, were... managed by boards of directors on which Government appointees had not just a few votes but voting control. ...
... We have no doubt, for example, that the statutory disavowal of Amtrak's agency status deprives Amtrak of sovereign immunity from suit, see Sentner v. Amtrak, 540 F Supp 557, 560 (NJ 1982), and of the ordinarily presumed power of Government agencies authorized to incur obligations to pledge the credit of the United States, ... The Constitution constrains governmental action "by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken." Ex parte Virginia, 100 US 339, 346-347, 25 L Ed 676 (1880). And under whatever congressional label. ...
... Facing the question of Amtrak's status for the first time, we conclude that it is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the Constitution. This conclusion seems to us in accord with public and judicial understanding of the nature of Government-created and -controlled corporations over the years. A remarkable feature of the heyday of those corporations, in the 1930's and 1940's, was that, even while they were praised for their status "as agencies separate and distinct, administratively and financially and legally from the government itself, [which] has facilitated their adoption of commercial methods of accounting and financing, avoidance of political controls, and utilization of regular procedures of business management," it was fully acknowledged that they were a "device" of "government," and constituted "federal corporate departments" apart from "regular government departments." Pritchett, 40 Am Pol Sci Rev, at 495. The Reference Manual of Government Corporations,... contains as one of its Tables "Corporations arranged according to supervising or interested Government department or agency," see GAO Corporation Manual x-xi. ...
Even Congress itself appeared to acknowledge, at least until recent years, that Government-created and -controlled corporations were part of the Government. The Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, discussed above, which brought to an end an era of uncontrolled growth of Government corporations, provided that, without explicit congressional authorization, no corporation should be acquired or created by "any officer or agency of the Federal Government or by any Governmental corporation for the purpose of acting as an agency or instrumentality of the United States ...." sec 304(a), 59 Stat, at 602 (emphasis added). That was evidently intended to restrict the creation of all Government-controlled policy-implementing corporations,and not just some of them. And the companion provision that swept away many of the extant corporations said that no wholly owned government corporation created under state law could continue "as an agency or instrumentality of the United States," sec. 304(b), 59 Stat, at 602...
It surely cannot be that government, state or federal, is able to evade the most solemn obligations imposed in the constitution by simply resorting to the corporate form....
Amtrak was created by a special statute, explicitly for the furtherance of federal government goals. ...
We hold that where, as here, the Government creates a corporation by special law, for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of that corporation, the corporation is part of the Government for purposes of the First Amendment. ..." (emphasis added) Lebron v. National R. Passenger Corp. (1995), 130 L.Ed.2d 902, 914-923.

No person transacting business under a fictitious name contrary to the provisions of this chapter, or his assignee, may maintain any action upon or on account of any contract made, or transaction had, in the fictitious business name in any court of this state until the fictitious business name statement has been executed, filed, and published as required by this chapter. For the purposes of this section, the failure to comply with subdivision (b) of Section 17917 does not constitute transacting business contrary to the provisions of this chapter.

[One day I found, in Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives (1998) [a listing of private corporations], Volume 1 of 3, page 3161:]

"U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
"475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington DC 20260
"Business: Mail delivery serv. incl. 1st-4th class, priority, express, intl. surface & air franked, spec. delivery, certified, registered, insured, collect, penalty & free serv. to the blind, mail forwarding, mailgrams, sales of stamps, philatic items, envelopes & mail orders, distr. of food stamps & acceptance of passport applications.
"S.I.C. [Standard Industrial Code]: 4311"

[In Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives (1998), Volume 1 of 3, page 1075, I found:]

"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA
"(Div. Federal Reserve System)
"Business: Federal reserve bank
"S.I.C. 6011"

"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF BOSTON"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO"
"Detroit Branch"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF KANSAS CITY"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA"

"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST.LOUIS"
"FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO"

[I can almost infer that any entity identified by its name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is a corporation; that is, somebody, or a group of somebodies, DOING BUSINESS AS (d.b.a.) a fictitious entity.]

That brought me to FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING STANDARDS (FIPS), PUBLICATION 95-1: CODES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY-ASSISTED ORGANIZATIONS (FIPS PUB 95-1)(1993 January 4) [Superseded by FIPS PUB 95-2].

[I did not try to maintain the format, merely the relevant information.]
FIPS PUB 95-1 reads (emphasis added):

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS) are issued by the National Bureau of Standards in accordance with section 111(f)(2) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat 1127), Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973), and Part 6 of Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations.

1. Name of Standard: Codes for the Identification of Federal and Federally-Assisted Organizations, (FIPS PUB 95-1).

3. Explanation: This Standard provides a four-character identifier for each organization listed. The set of identifiers defines a standard data element. The two leftmost characters form a component data element which is identical with the two-digit numerical code used in the Federal budgetary process to identify major Federal organizations. This component, designated as the Treasury Agency Symbol (TAS), is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
This standard supersedes FIPS PUB 95 is its entirety.
The purposes of data element standardization are to eliminate unnecessary duplications and incompatibilities in the collection, processing, and dissemination of data, and to maximize the usefulness of data resources.

4. Approving Authority: The Secretary of Commerce.

...

7. Applicability: This standard applies to data interchange among executive departments and independent agencies and for Federal data interchange with the non-Federal sector including industry, State, local, and other Governments, and the public at large.

8. Implementation Schedule: This Standard became effective December 1, 1982. Use by Federal agencies is encouraged when such use contributes to operational benefits, efficiency, or economy.

10. Where to Obtain Copies. Copies of this publication, printed or microfiche, are for sale by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161. When ordering, refer to Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 95-1(FIPSPUB95-1) and title. Payment may be made by check, money order, or NIST deposit account.

TABLE OF ORGANIZATIONS AND CODES
Executive Departments
(and their associated organizations)

...

2000 Treasury, Department of the

2001 Immediate Office of the Secretary of the Treasury
...
2046 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
2003 Office of the General Counsel
2004 Office of the Inspector General
2050 Internal Revenue Service
202E Office of Enforcement and Operations
...
2022 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
2024 Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
...
2038 Office of Foreign Assets Control
2039 Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Operations)
2026 U.S. Customs Service
2028 U.S. Secret Service
202M Office of Monetary Affairs
...
2033 Financial Management Service
2036 Bureau of the Public Debt
2047 Office of Thrift Supervision
202T Office of the Treasurer of the United States
2040 Immediate Office of Treasurer of the United States
2041 Bureau of Engraving and Printing
2044 U.S. Mint
2048 U.S. Savings Bonds Division
...

Federally Aided Organizations:

2092 Corporation for Public Broadcasting
2093 District of Columbia
2095 Legal Services Corporation
2098 New York City

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED (1999), APPENDIX, p. 314 reads (in part):

REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3 OF 1967
Eff. Aug. 11, 1967 (in part), 32 F.R. 11669, 81 Stat. 948, as amended Pub. L. 90-623, sec. 7(b), Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1315.
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Part I. General Provisions
Section 101. Definitions. (a) As used in this reorganization plan, the term "the Corporation" means the body-corporate for municipal purposes created a government by the name of the "District of Columbia."
(b) References in this reorganization plan to any provision of the District of Columbia Code are references to the provisions of statutory law codified under that provision and include the said provision as amended, modified, or supplemented prior to the effective date of this reorganization plan (including modifications made by Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 (66 Stat. 824)).
Sec. 102. Reorganization. The Corporation is hereby reorganized as provided in the following Parts of this reorganization plan.
...
Sec. 504. Effective dates. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this reorganization plan shall take effect on the date determined under section 906(a) of title 5 of the United States Code.
(b) Part IV and sections 501, 502, and 503 of this reorganization plan shall take effect when for the first time there are in office under this reorganization plan both (1) the Commissioner provided for in Part III hereof, and (2) not less than six members of the Council provided for in Part II hereof or on such later date as may be specified by the President of the United States.

[Now let's just hypothecate that every current "STATE" of the "UNITED STATES" is a Federal Corporation chartered in the "Federally Aided Organization", the reorganized "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA", under the supervision/receivership [?] of "THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY".]
[Should I have a problem with that?]

[What if every "STATE" agency is actually a sub-Corporation of that particular "DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" Corporation?]
[What if all these Corporations have unilaterally preesumed that I am either (1) also a Corporation or (2) the "property" of a Corporation?]
[What if every interaction I have with "THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT" and with each "STATE GOVERNMENT" is presumed by them to be governed under one or more implicit and undisclosed commercial [adhesion] "contract(s)"?]

[What if I have never seen the "contract", in its entirety, in writing?]
[What if I have never seen the "contract", but only heard about it?]
[What if the "contract" does not bear my signature?]
[What if the "contract" does not exist?]
[What if the "contract" is between two or more such "Corporations" (a "Multi-State Taxing Compact" or a "Multi-State Driver License Compact", for example) and I am an innocent third party who does not even know the "contract" exists?]
[How can I lawfully be bound to a contract I did not knowingly, willingly, and intelligently enter and for which I have received/pledged NO mutual valuable Consideration?]
[How can anyone lawfully hold me, by force, to a quasi-commercial contract between other parties?]
[Would I have a problem then?]

[Could it be that my ignorance of the law has placed me in a very dangerous position, indeed?]