6 ms·
> You cannot be denied one. 1) You still have to pay for one. 2) If you are not a suspect, you don't get the right to an attorney in the way you imply which l
by fweespeech 11y ago
> You cannot be denied one.
1) You still have to pay for one.
2) If you are not a suspect, you don't get the right to an attorney in the way you imply which leaves you with no reliable, neutral witness to call upon.
> Also: how does the advice "Don't lie" to the FBI get downmodded?
Because its an open secret that the FBI isn't above twisting arms and bending rules to win their cases.
One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation which costs you 5 figures or rely on an overworked public defense attorney which is unlikely to have more than a couple hours on your case.
Yeah. I don't think you have any practical experience in the way the system works. You don't want a public defender unless you have 100% incontrovertible proof you are innocent. At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway.
- mhuffman 11y ago> You cannot be denied one. Also, in many jurisdictions, you have to fill out a financial form for them to "determine" if you could afford an attorney on your on. If they decide that you can, regardless of your true finances, they can decline to provide a court-appointed attorney to you.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago>One way to do that is to force you to defend yourself in court against a lie accusation This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI. >At which point, the FBI wouldn't pull this shit anyway. Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals.
- fweespeech 11y ago> Exactly. However, everyone here seems to be quite worked up over these synthetic hypotheticals. So you have a habit of recording all your conversations with full knowledge of the legal notification laws? That is what "incontrovertible" evidence would require. Fyi, its not a synthetic hypothetical. I debated explaining but honestly, I don't really expect you to believe me and I don't care at this point. > This is pretty easy to defend as the burden of proof is entirely on the FBI. In theory, yes. However, 5 figures in legal bills are the end result unless you have a literal recording of the conversation whose authenticity can't be questioned.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoI do try to mentally record my conversations. I've found that very few other people seem to. Try asking someone what they just said some time, or asking them what you just said. I doubt they will give you a verbatim recording. Don't lie; ask questions whose answers contradict established theory.
- fweespeech 11y agoLol. Good luck with that being an effective defense that costs you $0. You'd need to record it on a machine of some kind. Which has legal consequences, notification requirements, etc.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoThe FBI would be recording and I would have access to those recordings. Miranda right #1 I believe.
- fweespeech 11y agoLook, I've accepted nothing I can say will convince you. But, if you think that is how it works, good luck.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoYou think the FBI can introduce evidence against you, that you cannot examine?
- fweespeech 11y agoYou really are trying to be dense and I'm done wasting my time.