This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Why would anyone sign such a form anyway?
The last sentence by itself almost creates a confession given the way its worded. I have to hope this was not a real example of how it was worded. There’s far too little room between “my case” and “my crime” in that disclaimer for my liking…
You’d be surprised how willing people are to sign a little bit of paperwork if they think it will work out in their favor. They don’t know they’re doing, or think they do, but are very wrong.
EULAs are the primary example of people not reading or not trying to understand what’s happening. Those only get by because it’s in the best interest of the company making them to not put anything slimy up. For a legal waiver such as “I choose to not blame any injuries etc” they won’t even let you participate until you sign.
For this…This is duplicity of the utmost kind. But cops don’t have to do many things, and it’s in THEIR best interest to bypass the system whenever possible…
Reminds me of the HumancentiPad episode of South Park, abiut people who don’t read the Apple EULA.
Now that I think about it, that fourth right – it’s my understanding that, at least in a lot of states, to get access to a public defender, you have to meet income requirements.
How self-incrimination relates to taxes and public benefits in general where illegal income is concerned, I think you’ve said you’ll get to in the future – but what about access to a public defender? It strikes me as particularly egregious for excess income to be used against a defendant who reported it to gain access to a defense in the matter of the source of that income.
Well, said illegal income wouldn’t take you from the level where you can afford your own lawyer to the level where you can’t.
Sorry, to expand on this, I made a rather incomplete statement there. Basically, excess income wouldn’t aid you in gaining access to a court-appointed lawyer anyway, so you wouldn’t report it.
You have a right to an attorney. Not to a free one. You only get a free one if you can’t afford to pay for one. I don’t think it’s an income requirement, but based on your ability to pay. of which your income is a factor. If there’s a disagreement on whether or not you should be entitled to a public defender, there would be a hearing about it (and to be honest, if you can afford a lawyer, you REALLY don’t want the free one. They’re overworked and you don’t get a choice on who you get).
Suspected illegal assets are usually frozen, so I don’t think they’d count towards your ability to pay a lawyer (if they are illegal income, they take it away).
Just realized that the female officer in panel 4 is wearing Han Solo’s pants and boots. Fun! thanks.
This seems to me to make it quite clear that despite what the courts claim, most people don’t understand what the Miranda means. (i.e. “Shut up, you idiot!”)