When you dismiss authoritative works, treatises, laws, legal regimes, and general reasoning it's hard not to. My apologies if that offended you, I merely wish for a constructive debate. I based my opinion on your statement about reasonable doubt, in addition to not conveying an understanding of how contract law and regulatory law conflict and interact. For example, by claiming that "reasonable doubt" is subjective it shows to me that you have (1) a misconception at the core level of what reasonableness means and is defined in both a state-by-state and aggregate standard level, (2) a fault in logic when one person, not necessarily accustomed to thinking by analogy, needs to do so but cannot so they use blunt, stark black/white terms, (3) a miscomprehension of how different standards work within the framework of both a state-specific and national system of jurisprudence, and (4) a person clinging to so futile a point just to win that they forgo any constructive, actual argument they may have.
I love arguing, I love debate. But both parties must enter the debate with the same rules or else it all fall's apart. Hence I said "read this stuff before dismissing it."
Give me a state and I'll have applicable case law in seconds (but because this is a billable service, I will not be doing it past Google and free databases; sorry, professional standards are applicable here).
Finding cases "on" point, meaning 100% the same facts and standards, is almost impossible if you take it by the strictest of definitions. That's now how legal argument, reasoning, or deduction works. You find applicable law, where the facts are similar, and you apply that to your facts, usually through analogy. Maybe the facts are truly "on point," and maybe they're close enough. But to insist that you need a case "on point" or else my argument is invalid...well...that's just unnecessary, wrong, and contravenes how our legal system works.
Hence I asked you not to lecture me on it.