The STATE OF:
IGNORANCE… The Want Of Knowledge
Ignorantia facti
excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat defined: Ignorance of facts excuses,
ignorance of law does not excuse. 1 Co. 177; 4 Bouv. Inst. n 3828. See
Ignorance. A Law Dictionary: John Bouvier 1856
"The
truth knocks on the door and you say,
"Go
away!
I’m looking
for the truth." and so it goes away.
Puzzling?"
IGNORANCE defined
The want of knowledge. 2. Ignorance is distinguishable from error. Ignorance is
want of knowledge; error is the non-conformity or opposition of our ideas to
the truth. Considered as a motive of our actions, ignorance differs but little
from error. They are generally found together, and what is said of one is said
of both. 3. Ignorance and error are of several kinds. 1. When considered as to
their object, they are of law and of fact. 2. When examined as to their origin,
they are voluntary or involuntary, 3. When viewed with regard to their
influence on the affairs of men, they are essential or non-essential. 4.-1.
Ignorance of law and fact. 1. Ignorance of law, consists in the want of
knowledge of those laws which it is our duty to understand, and which every man
is presumed to know. The law forbids any one to marry a woman whose husband is
living. If any man, then, imagined he could marry such a woman, he would be
ignorant of the law; and, if he married her, he would commit an error as to a
matter of law. How far a party is bound to fulfill a promise to pay, upon a
supposed liability, and in ignorance of the law, see 12 East, R. 38; 2 Jac.
& Walk. 263; 5 Taunt. R. 143; 3 B. & Cresw. R. 280; 1 John. Ch. R. 512,
516; 6 John. Ch. R. 166; 9 Cowen's R. 674; 4 Mass. R. 342; 7 Mass. R. 452; 7
Mass. R. 488; 9 Pick. R. 112; 1 Binn. R. 27. And whether he can be relieved
from a contract entered into in ignorance or mistake of the law. 1 Atk. 591; 1
Ves. & Bea. 23, 30; 1 Chan. Cas. 84; 2 Vern. 243; 1 John. Ch. R. 512; 2
John. Ch. R. 51; 1 Pet. S. C. R. 1; 6 John. Ch. R. 169, 170; 8 Wheat. R. 174; 2
Mason, R. 244, 342. 5.-2. Ignorance of fact, is the want of knowledge as to the
fact in question. It would be an error resulting from ignorance of a fact, if a
man believed a certain woman to be unmarried and free, when in fact, she was a
married woman; and were he to marry her under that belief, he would not be
criminally responsible. Ignorance of the laws of a foreign government, or of
another state; is ignorance of a fact. 9 Pick. 112. Vide, for the difference
between ignorance of law and ignorance of fact, 9 Pick. R. 112; Clef. des Lois
Rom. mot Fait; Dig. 22, 6, 7. 6.-2. Ignorance is either voluntary or
involuntary. 1. It is voluntary when a party might, by taking reasonable pains,
have acquired the necessary knowledge. For example, every man might acquire a
knowledge of the laws which have been promulgated, a neglect to become
acquainted with them is therefore voluntary ignorance. Doct. & St. 1, 46;
Plowd. 343. 7.-2. Involuntary ignorance is that which does not proceed
fromchoice, and which cannot be overcome by the use of any means of knowledge
known to him and within his power; as, the ignorance of a law which has not yet
been promulgated. 8.-3. Ignorance is either essential or non-essential. 1. By
essential ignorance is understood that which has for its object some essential
circumstance so intimately connected with the: matter in question, and which so
influences the parties that it induces them to act in the business. For
example, if A should sell his horse to B, and at the time of the sale the horse
was dead, unknown to the parties, the fact of the death would render the sale
void. Poth. Vente, n. 3 and 4; 2 Kent, Com. 367. 9.-2. Non-essential or
accidental ignorance is that which has not of itself any necessary connection
with the business in question, and which is not the true consideration for
entering into the contract; as, if a man should marry a woman whom he believed
to be rich, and she proved to be poor, this fact would not be essential, and
the marriage would therefore be good. Vide, generally, Ed. Inj. 7; 1 Johns. h.
R. 512; 2 Johns. Ch. R. 41; S. C. 14 Johns. R 501; Dougl. 467; 2 East, R. 469;
1 Campb. 134: 5 Taunt. 379; 3 M. & S. 378; 12 East, R. 38; 1 Vern. 243; 3
P. Wms. 127, n.; 1 Bro. C. C. 92; 10 Ves. 406; 2 Madd. R. 163; 1 V. & B.
80; 2 Atk. 112, 591; 3 P. Wms. 315; Mos. 364; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 26,
p. 92; Id. Dial. 2, ch. 46, p. 303; 2 East, R. 469; 12 East, R. 38; 1 Fonb. Eq.
B. 1, ch. 2, Sec. 7, note v; 8 Wheat. R. 174; S. C. 1 Pet. S. C. R. 1; 1 Chan.
Cas. 84; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 137, note 1; Dig. 22, 6; Code, 1, 16; Clef des
Lois Rom. h.t.; Merl. Repert. h.t.; 3 Sav. Dr. Rom. Appendice viii., pp. 337 to
444. A Law Dictionary: John Bouvier 1856
Id possumus quod
de jure possumus defined: We may do what is allowed by law. Lane, 116. A Law
Dictionary: John Bouvier 1856
Id quod nostrum
est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest defined: What belongs to
us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But
this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take
property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may
also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent
tribunal.
2 comments:
"But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value."
If that is legitimate, ethical and moral for government then it's legitimate, ethical and moral for every person to do the same. If a property owner refuses to surrender their property and it's legitimate, moral and ethical for government to initiate violence to take the property it's equally legitimate, ethical and moral for every person to do the same.
That said, government -- men and women calling themselves government -- initiate violence and threats of violence to take/steal property. Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun.
The myth of government is proven superstition in this two-minute video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sRbR2QQ7w
Delusions and superstition gives way to reality. If a Republic is restored in America it will be the shortest "lived" Republic in history.
Technology and world altering events are occurring magnitudes faster and more abundant than one-hundred forty-two years ago when Lysander Spooner wrote this: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority
"But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value."
If that is legitimate, ethical and moral for government then it's legitimate, ethical and moral for every person to do the same. If a property owner refuses to surrender their property and it's legitimate, moral and ethical for government to initiate violence to take the property it's equally legitimate, ethical and moral for every person to do the same.
That said, government -- men and women calling themselves government -- initiate violence and threats of violence to take/steal property. Government is men and women providing services at the barrel of a gun.
The myth of government is proven superstition in this two-minute video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-sRbR2QQ7w
Delusions and superstition gives way to reality. If a Republic is restored in America it will be the shortest "lived" Republic in history.
Technology and world altering events are occurring magnitudes faster and more abundant than one-hundred forty-two years ago when Lysander Spooner wrote this: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority
Post a Comment