On 17 Sep, 07:10, Doug  wrote:

> > What on earth are you talking about?  The problem is that you don't
> > understand what "precedent" means in the common law context.
>
> "In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case
> establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body
> adopts when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."
>
> Note the use of the words 'case' and 'court' which you are obviously
> attempting to avoid.

<sigh>

As I have already told you, jury decisions are not binding on
subsequent juries.  They therefore do not create precedents in the
common law.  Thank you, therefore, for proving that my statement "The
problem is that you don't understand what "precedent" means in the
common law context" was true, Mr Bollen.

> > > BTW, congrats on avoiding personal abuse and wrong attributes in your
> > > post this time around. You seem to be learning at last.
>
> > <snigger>
>
> > By wrong attributes, do you mean calling you Mr Bollen, Mr Bollen?
>
> See what I mean? You have a very strange obsession.

Yes, I have a strange obsession with something called "the truth",
which is an alien concept to you, Mr Bollen.