John Doe vs. John Doe: Virginia Court's Decision in Online 'John Doe' Case Hailed by Free-Speech Advocates

[Sandy Sandfort]

Jim wrote:

> > Irrelevant, Jim has already conceded the
> > point in his parenthetic aside.
>
> Not at all, the question is what YOU believe.
> Not what I believe.

What I or Jim, believe is irrelevant in the
current context.  Jim, the courts and I all
agree that Anglo-American jurisprudence is
based on the common law, the Constitution
notwithstanding.  That's good enough for me.

> > > What does it say that common law must be
> > > predicated upon? [Hint: what must ALL US
> > > law be predicated upon?]
> >
> > Natural rights, at least that's what the
> > framers of the Constitution believed.
>
> Where in the Constitution is the term
> 'natural rights' used?

Please re-read my sentence.

> I'm not the one who starting quibling over
> what 'civil law' meant. You're the one who
> brought up the distinction.

Actually, you brought it up in a mish-mosh or pseudolegalisms.  I just
clarified the issue.

> > Civil remedies are under the common law
> > are created by courts not legislatures.
>
> EXACTLY my point, thank you for recognising
> it so openly.

You're welcome, unfortunately, your analysis is still flawed.

> Now go read the Constitution about law, and
> courts. Who in this country is the ONLY two
> groups that can make law? One is the states
> through constitutional amendments. There's
> one other and it ain't a court.

Right.  You are confusing "statutes" and precedents.  Courts don't enact
laws, but they do create the "common law" through precedents.  Apples &
oranges, again.

> [rest of your wanna-be-tricky word play aside]

Well, if you mean wanna-be lawyer, been there, done that.


 S a n d y