Probably ASSCAPS will be involved.

I think all legal warnings should start out, "HEY FUCKOS!"

I think all legal warnings should start out, "HEY FUCKOS!"

Heh. Legislation as well, if only in an attempt to make my Foundations reading more interesting.

In this part, FUCKOS are defined as you, dipshit, because we know that your smarmy-ass lawyers are just reading this thing to determine whether you can sue someone because it turns out that you actually are as dumb as you look.

Miranda isn't a law in the US; it's a court decision. So what we call "Miranda rights" are the rights ensured by a legal decision called Miranda v. Arizona, from 1966. It's an abbreviation.

And I gather that before Miranda, some states did have laws on the books saying, "Dude, if you want the confession to stick, you should cover your behind." It's just that Arizona wasn't one of those states (nor, apparently, were new York or California), and the Fifth Amendment was being laughed at, and so now, officially and clearly, and nationwide,

the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way

The Findlaw Entry on Miranda, which also touches on the tradition against involuntary self-incrimination in England.

It's not a law. But as a binding court decision it is law.

t /rationalization

Miranda isn't a law in the US; it's a court decision. So what we call "Miranda rights" are the rights ensured by a legal decision called Miranda v. Arizona, from 1966. It's an abbreviation.

Interestingly, Congress hated Miranda. They passed a law in relative short order saying, no, Miranda's remedy is not legally mandated. But most jurisdictions like Miranda; they make confessions stickier. So it wasn't until the 90s that the little-publicized federal statute was used against a Miranda claim in either the fourth or fifth circuit. This is where it gets kind of interesting.

Rehnquist had claimed, every single time it came up, loudly, assholishly and in complete contravention to the statements of the sitting justices who wrote the decision, that Miranda was *not* constitutionally mandated-- it was a judicially created remedy to a fifth amendment violation. The difference is that Congress may overrule a judicial remedy. It may not make a law overruling a constitutional requirement.

But when the federal statute overruling Miranda came up for review after the fifth or fourth circuit upheld it, Rehnquist made a complete 180 without any justification whatsoever. No way was he going to allow Congress to overrule the Court on his watch-- even if it meant a completely hypocritical decision. So Miranda was then declared a constitutional requirement.

This is why I hate Rehnquist. At least Scalia is intellectually consistent.

A whole new reason to hate Rehnquist!

Yeah, I also hear from his clerks that he snacks on babies and pushes old ladies into buses for fun.

Everybody knows about the babies.

Is "gazumping" an actual legal term?

Yes

A survey is something paid for buy the buyer which ensures that the house is sound, stable, won't need any major works soon, etc. Mostly important in houses like mine which are 150+ years old. The Boundaries and deeds stuff is called a "search" and is done by your lawyer.

And yes, house Prices are still rising in most of London and the SE - but the rate of rise has dropped from about 25-40% a year to about 10-20%.