airbreather

Feels like there ought to be a term... it's kind of a mix between "vicious circle", "feedback loop", and "echo chamber".

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had;" "had had" had had a greater effect on the teacher.

https://xkcd.com/1589

Pretty much just now, they rebranded to Legcord

I can't even imagine how my friend would take it.

OK, OK, time out. You haven't tried talking with them about it? If you have as strong a mutual (platonic(ish?)) relationship with them as you say you do, then it should be able to survive a serious conversation about your shared future, especially if you emphasize that you want to try to keep them in your life in a major way like this.

That conversation will probably be hard, and I really can't think of a solution that would feel perfect if I were in your shoes, but I would sure as hell rather have that conversation than the "I made a decision, and here is how you will be impacted" one, or the "I kept my life on hold because I was worried how you might react to talking about it" one.

I don't know your personality or your friend's personality, so I can't promise that you will sort it all out without emotions running high, or what the ultimate outcome of such a conversation will be.

But jeez, bud, you've GOT to be able to have serious talks with people whom you trust and care about.

Anything's possible, but...

I have a feeling that the people who are just smart and capable enough to pull this off without any prior legal training or experience are also smart and capable enough to realize how incredibly bad an idea it would be to try in the first place.

If you're going to fight the case on principle, then it is a no-brainer to hire at least some sort of legal representation. In terms of expected value, I imagine that it's practically buying free money, at least up to a point.

The 8th amendment has a clause that disallows "excessive bail". In Stack v. Boyle, the Supreme Court found this to mean "that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial." So it follows that IN THEORY, bail is SUPPOSED to be set at an amount that is consistent with the defendant's financial resources (including, it would also follow, increasing the amount for more wealthy people to ensure that it has the same proportionate effect on the defendant's decision-making process).

Of course, that rule is just a bunch of meaningless words if nobody enforces it... and guess what, the main way to enforce this is by bringing a suit against the government alleging that they violated the rule. So IN PRACTICE (speculation warning here, I'm just some guy), I would imagine that they just set bail schedules at a level where anyone who can afford to pay won't be able to win an "excessive bail" lawsuit, and anyone who can't afford to pay it will also probably not be able to afford the cost of that lawsuit.

And something tells me that we aren't likely to see a wealthy person suing the government for not setting bail high enough for them.

How could this happen to me

The term is Heisenbug

I could of course say this as well. It's clearer with additional punctuation like "I could, of course, [...]", but I don't think the comma-free version is technically incorrect (anymore, if it ever was).