THE TRAFFIC RACKET AND HOW IT WORKS

Aggrieved Parties and the general public has been and is being scammed in the following manner through what is undoubtedly a Traffic Racket:

A. Men and women, herein referred as Victims, through propaganda not based on law, are taught they are required to purchase a “driver’s License”/“chauffeur’s License” to ride their non-commercial vehicles on the roadways; failure to purchase the License will cause the Victim engaged in ordinary travel to be arrested/kidnapped by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

B. The Victim through harassment and coercion from the Weaponized Peace Officers, are forced into buying the “motor vehicle registration” service and display the receipt via a “License Plate”, failure to display such receipt will cause Victim’s vehicle to be taken through force exercised by the weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers.

C. The weaponized highwaymen acting as Peace Officers ensure the Victim appears before an alleged Traffic Referee who through abuse of process extorts Fines and Court Cost from the Victim.

D. This harassment and coercion is supported and upheld by the State’s Lower courts and is further supported by with a blind eye approval from the State’s higher Courts.

E. The basic proceeds are as follows:

a. Licensed and Registration proceeds are shared by the State and The Municipalities that host DMV Offices.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, State/Municipal Employees and all State run pension plans.

b. Fine and Penalty proceeds are shared by the Courts, The Municipalities and The State Treasury.
Proceeds from this racket benefits all State Officers, all State run pension plans and Municipalities who use these funds to hire more revenue making highwaymen and Traffic Referees.

police2

Charlie Sprinkle’s Law Suit

This is the law suit Charlie Sprinkle used to defeat the state of California in their attempt to extort money from him for “driving” without a license. Because of this suit, the state backed down and Charlie traveled in his automobile until his death some 40 years later without a “drivers license”:


Charles Sprinkle’s Section 1983 Case from 1975

Charles Sprinkle                                                                             Filed 3 January 1975

10580 Creek Road Ojai, California 93023

Plaintiff Pro Se.

U.S. District Court

Central District of California

312 Spring Street, Los Angeles California

Charles R. Sprinkle

plaintiff

v

Governor Ronald Reagan,

his wife Nancy Reagan,

District Attorney Stanley Trom,

his wife Joan Trom,

Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hinkle,

his wife Mary Hinkle,

Judge Benjamin Ruffner,

his wife Jacqueline Ruffner,

Judge Donald Polack, his wife Georgia Polack,

Judge Richard Heaton,

his wife Anne Heaton,

Officer Glen White,

his wife Judy White,

Officer Gary Hardman,

his wife Patricia Hardman,

Judge Robert Soares,

his wife Kathryn Soares,

Defendants

Case # CV 75-13 dww(k)

            Complaint for Money Damages for:

            Deprivation of Constitutional Rights,

            Conspiracy do Deprive Plaintiff of Constitutional Rights, and

Failure to Protect Plaintiff from Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional Rights.

Jury is hereby Demanded.

1.         Comes now the Plaintiff above named in his own natural person and complains against Defendants above named for depriving Plaintiff of constitutional rights under color of State Law, custom or usage, conspiracy to so deprive and/or failure, neglect or refusal to protect plaintiff from said conspiracy although it was within the power to do so.

Jurisdiction

2.         This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3), and (4) and under USC 1938, 1985.

3.         Plaintiff and individuals, named are citizens and residents of the State of California. Defendants are employees of the State of California and The County of Ventura.

1st Cause of Action

4.         Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Ventura, State of California for the past thirteen years.

5.         Ronald Reagan is Governor of the State of California;

6.         Robert Soares is Judge in the Municipal Court County of Ventura State of California.

7.         Stanley Trom is District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California.

8.         William L. Hinkle is Deputy District Attorney for the County of Ventura, State of California;

9.         Glen White is Court Officer for the State Highway Patrol, County of Ventura, State of California.

10.       Gary Hardman is Highway Patrol Officer in the County of Ventura, State of California;

11.       Benjamin Ruffner is Judge in Superior Court, County of Ventura, State of California:

12.       Donald Polack is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

13.       Richard Heaton is Superior Court Judge, County of Ventura, State of California;

14.       Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Ann Heaton, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Polack, Patricia Hardman and Kathryn A. Soares are to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the wives, respectively of Defendants named above;

15.       They are joined as a protection to Plaintiff against their husbands unlawful dissipation of assets or attempted conveyances of property in a attempt to defraud legitimate creditors.

16.       By Law, Article XX Section 3 of the Constitution, State of California, Defendants, Reagan, Soares, Trom., Hinkle, White, Ruffner, Heaton, Hardman and Polack, have been required by Oath of affirmation, to support and defend Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when or where they clam to have jurisdiction over or official duties with the Plaintiff.

Stopped by Highway Patrol on Jan 15, 1974

17.       On or about Jan. 15, 1974, Plaintiff while driving a 1967 Triumph automobile on State of California Highway, Plaintiff was arrested and ordered to obtain a Drivers License and a automobile License.

Driver License is Title of Nobility

18.       Both are Titles of nobility.

19.       Said order was in violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of allduties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engagein war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Close .

Federal Reserve notes not backed by silver and gold

20.       Defendant Hardman, Highway Patrolman, also required me to pay for said License with Federal Reserve Notes, That are not backed by gold or silver coin, as stipulated in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

21.       Defendant Hardman threatened Plaintiff with deprivation of Liberty and property with out due process of Law.

22.       All this was done under, Color, Custom and Usage of California State Vehicle Code.

23.       Defendant White acting in conspiracy with Hardman and under color, custom and usage of law, ordered Plaintiff to court.

24.       The constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office as covered by Title 18, USC 241and 242.

25.       Defendant Soares was assigned to Court wherein Plaintiff appeared as defendant in a criminal Traffic Case.

26.       Plaintiff filed a motion for counsel of his own choice, as is his right, as set forth in the 6th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

27.       Defendant Soares in concert with the California State Legislature, has denied Plaintiff’s motion for counsel of his own choice.

28.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Freedom of Speech and Freedom of association under the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution.

29.       Therefore, Plaintiff is free to associate with counsel of his choice and to have a spokesman (counsel of his choice to speak for him).

Denial of Due Process

30.       Plaintiff is guaranteed Due process of Law by the Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.

Denial of Counsel of Choice

31.       The Bill of Rights includes, Counsel of choice in the 6th amendment.

32.       Due Process is guaranteed by the both the 5th and the 14th amendments to the constitution.

Infliction of Excessive and therefore Cruel and Unusual Punishment

33.       Under the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment may not be applied against Plaintiff.

34.       Defendants have imposed just such cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff by the mental stress placed upon Plaintiff as a result of Defendant Soares’s denial of Counsel of choice.

35.       Under the 9th amendment to the constitution Plaintiff’s right to counsel of choice is protected from encroachment by any individual or government body under the 10th amendment to the constitution.

36.       Plaintiff reserves all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal or State Government and he has not waived any of the rights aforementioned, which for the most part are natural rights, but which are also protected by the constitution.

Infliction of Peonage and Involuntary Servitude

37.       Under the 13th. amendment to the constitution Plaintiff is protected against peonage and involuntary servitude, where the actions of Defendants appear to destine Plaintiff.

38.       Under the 14th amendment of the, Plaintiff is protected under Title 18 USC, Sec. 241and 242 from the acts of Defendants.

California Bar in Violation of Sherman Antitrust Act

39.       Defendants , Under Color, Usage and Custom of California set forth in Article VI Sec.9 of the California constitution (attached hereto as Exhibit A) and made a part here of as though stated in total herein, in their capacity of public ministers have denied plaintiff the unalienable right to counsel of Plaintiff own choice, Who may or may not be a member of an exclusive organization, Which Organization may well be in Violation of the Sherman antitrust Act 25 USC 1,2,3,

40.       Defendants Trom and Hinkle Conspired in concert with other Defendants, Hardman, White, Soares, Reagan, Ruffner, Polack and Heaton, acting outside their Lawful Duties, To bring to bear upon Plaintiff unconstitutional acts under Color, custom and Usage of State laws.

41.       Defendants Reagan, Soars, Hardman, Trom, Hinkle, Pollack, Heaton, Ruffner and White acted outside the perimeters their Lawful Duties.

42.       Defendants Violated their Oaths of office. They did so under Color, Custom and usage of Federal and State Law. Defendants acted Grossly, Willfully, Wantonly, Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Maliciously, purposefully, Intentionally and Discriminatingly against Plaintiff and did so taking advantage of Color, Custom and Usage of State Law and custom within a citizen’s fear of State personal prosecuting good citizens for having stood up for their Natural rights protected by the U.S. constitution and the California State Constitution.

Conspiracy. Overt Acts

43.       Defendants conspired together and with others as yet unknown to Plaintiff to deprive him of his rights.

44.       Overt acts committed by Defendants Pollack, Ruffner, Soares, Hardman, White, Reagan, Trom and Hinkle includes that complained of in above paragraph of this complaint.

45.       Denying Plaintiff a right to counsel, are all in collusion with the State Legislative Branches of the State of California.

46.       Defendants named above relying on their own discretion and erroneous interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Which is the Constitution and not any statute in conflict there with issued or coursed to be issued order for plaintiff conspire with Defendants to subvert the constitution by excepting Titles of Nobility and to make something other them gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt.

47.       All these are contrary Article 1, Sec. 10, of the Constitution.

48.       Defendants aforenamed deprived Plaintiff of his 9th and 10th Amendment rights, which protect him from Oath-breaking so-called “public servants” who wallow in the pubic trough while trampling upon Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.

49.       Said defendants, Meanwhile attempt to impose totalitarian Socialism upon the People, Although such a System is the Antithesis of the Constitution, That public servants and duly constituted Authorities are Sworn to uphold

50.       Defendants have exceeded their jurisdiction.

51.       They have abused their discretion.

52.       They have acted outside the Lawful perimeters of their official duties.

53.       They have Grossly, Willfully, wantonly, 19) Unlawfully, Carelessly, Recklessly, Negligently, Intentionally, 20) maliciously, Purposefully, and Discriminatingly Conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights and They have Refused, neglected or Failed to Protect Plaintiff from said Conspiracy although they have been a position to do so.

54.       Defendants Nancy Reagan, Joan Trom, Mary Hinkle, Judy White, Jacqueline A. Ruffner, Georgia L. Pollack, Anne Heaton, Patricia Hardman, Kathryn A. Soares, are the wives respectively of the afore-named Defendants Who are Employed as Erstwhile “public-servants”;These wives are in effect are “Socialist- Queens”, enjoying and living on the Largess and Unlawful spoils brought home by their husbands as compensation for said husband’s Violation of their Oaths of Office and for their willing perversion of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

55.       Said wife Defendants named above have failed, refused or neglected to protect Plaintiff from the conspiracy of their husbands and said failure is intentional, purposeful and malicious.

56.       The acts of omission of said wife Defendants named above constitute an overt act of conspiracy to refuse to protect Plaintiff.

57.       Defendant acts as heretofore complained of, Have caused harm and damage to Plaintiff.

58.       Said acts have caused mental and physical suffering, insomnia, worry, financial insecurity, stress and strain in relationships, in his work, with his family, relatives and friends, Defendants activities have impaired Plaintiffs credit standing.

59.       They have subjected him to public ridicule and embarrassment.

Prayer

60.       Defendants complained of acts entitle Plaintiff to recover money 21) damages from Defendants and from each of them as follows:

61.       For general damages $ 50,000;

62.       For punitive damages $100,000;

63.       This shall be payable to Plaintiff in Constitutional Lawful Money redeemable in gold or silver coin as set forth in Article 1 Sec. 10 of the constitution.

64.       In addition plaintiff prays such other and further relief as to the jury demanded in this case shall appear just.

65.       Defendants herein are sued in their individual capacities and not as agents of the State of California or The United States.

66.       This is a civil rights Suit and not under the torts claims act.

67.       The United States or the State of California can not be substituted as a party defendant and the consent of the united States or the State of California to be sued is not demanded.

68.       If necessary; Plaintiff demands for all issues to be decided by the Jury Demanded;

69.       If defendants move to dismiss this suit, Plaintiff Demands that it be heard by the jury demanded, and only be dismissed if the Jury considers it lacks merit.

(Respectfully submitted)

Charles Sprinkle, Laborer, Pro Se

Charles Sprinkle

1273 Rice Road #48, Ojai CA 93023

640 0439

Notice of Violation of my Constitutional Rights

Demand to Cease and Desist

Letter #5673

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Greg Totten
District Attorney
800 South Victoria
Ventura CA 93003

Dear Mr. Totten:

I am a member of a revolutionary group. We forced the King to sign the Magna Charta in 1215 at the point of a sword in a field near Runnymede. Later we wrote the Declaration of Independence which is still recognized authority in some jurisdictions today. Then we wrote the constitution. We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

I am informed that recently you swore to uphold the constitution. That is why I am writing.

We the People are the Sovereign described in the Magna Charta, The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution.

From:

Charles Sprinkle

Ojai California
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FEE SCHEDULE CONTRACT

I do not encourage the art of ”holding court at the side of the road” as it can be detrimental to ones health and well being. Therefore, if you choose to hand this Contract to a person in a blue costume, wearing a badge and packing a gun, who is a member of a gang of thugs known as “policemen/police officers” or the like, be forewarned that the majority of them are NOT going to be nice. They do not act as “public servants”. Their master is the CORPORATION which employs them, rather that CORPORATION be a city, state or federal CORPORATION and they advertise that on their badges and on the side of their vehicles.
                             
NOTICE OF FEES

1. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

2. I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO INCRIMINATE MYSELF – I WILL BE EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.

       2 A. ANY INFORMATION I GIVE TO YOU I GIVE UNDER DURESS AND AT THE POINT OF YOUR GUN IN FEAR THAT YOU MIGHT JAIL OR KILL ME IF I DO NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS.

3. I DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES OF MY PERSON OR MY PROPERTY.

4. IF THIS STOP/DETAINMENT/ARREST IS IN ANY WAY IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, OR IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR TO PROTECT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THEN THIS CONTRACT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE IN ALL STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND FEES WILL BE LEVIED AGAINST YOU AND/OR YOUR BONDING AGENT(S) AND YOUR SUPERIORS IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:

A. ONE TROY OUNCE OF GOLD FOR EVERY STOP OR DETAINMENT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

B. TWO TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ACT OF CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY RIGHTS, UNALIENABLE OR OTHERWISE, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

C. TEN TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY CUSTODIAL ARREST IN WHICH I AM DETAINED AGAINST MY WILL IN VIOLATION OF MY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE MISSOURI STATE CONSTITUTION, OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

D. ONE-HUNDRED TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY ARREST IN WHICH I AM PLACED IN CONFINEMENT RATHER THAT CONFINEMENT BE IN HANDCUFFS, A POLICE CAR OR JAIL, WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

E. ONE-THOUSAND TROY OUNCES OF GOLD* FOR EVERY TEN HOURS, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OF CONFINEMENT WHEN IN VIOLATION OF MY RIGHTS OR WHEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR OATH OF HONOR.

 THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHTS, OR MY RIGHTS, PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, THEN YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL.   

NOTICE: FAILURE TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT VOID THIS CONTRACT.

*ALL GOLD VALUES ARE DETERMINED TO BE THEIR VALUE AT THE TIME OF VIOLATION(S) OF THIS CONTRACT.

DATED AND SIGNED THIS ______DAY OF________, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 2013 AT__________(AM/PM).

__________________________________________                           ______________________________________________________

             DETAINING OFFICER                                                                                MYSELF                            

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

pv-tags-01

The Shocking Secret About Court Room Flags – It’s A Warning!

The National Flag of the United States, the ‘Stars and Stripes’, is sometimes decorated with gold fringe around the edges.  These yellow fringed ‘Stars and Stripes’ can be found in most State and Federal Courts, Municipal Buildings, and Schools throughout America, but why? militaryflag.gif

The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign jurisdiction, the same as if you are stepping onto foreign soil and you will be under the jurisdiction of THAT flag.  The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of any court, and is not recognized by any nation on this earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America.

Those of us who believe that the Yellow Fringed Flag is the ‘Law of Admiralty’ Flag will know all about this.   For the rest of us, this will be a shocking new disclosure.  President, Dwight David Eisenhower signed Executive Order No.10834 on August 21, 1959 and had printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to the law, stated that:  “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

The American people were allowed to believe that it was just a decoration but its not.  When you see a flag that resembles a regular US flag with YELLOW FRINGE border on the edges, it means that you are in a special place.  A place that should not have any jurisdiction over you if you are a normal citizen.  The President of the United States designates this difference from the regular flag, by executive order such as Ike did, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military he makes it so.  The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.

If you walk onto a ship docked in a port located in New York City you are subject to the laws of the city and state of New York as well as the Federal Laws of the United States.  This is as one would expect.  When that ship leaves that harbor, then things change.  Got it now?  Wherever that ship happens to come to rest the law of the land wherever you happen to be has jurisdiction over you.  When out in the high seas past the twelve mile limit you are not under the jurisdiction of any nation’s laws.  You are under the jurisdication of what is known as “Maritime Law”.  You will be subject to the law of the flag of that ship, enforceable by the “master of the ship,” otherwise known as the Captain, by the law of the flag.

If you enter a foreign embassy that happens to be in Washington DC, you are entering a distinct “enclave” with laws that may differ from your “home” state.  You will be subject to the laws of THAT country, not US law, just as if you are boarding a ship.  So, when you enter a courtroom displaying a gold or yellow fringed flag, be aware that you have just entered into a foreign country, and you better have your passport with you.  The judge sitting under a gold or yellow fringe flag becomes the “captain” or “master” of that ship or enclave and he has absolute power to make the rules as he goes.  The gold or yellow fringe flag is your WARNING that you are leaving your Constitutionally protected rights on the floor outside the door of that courtroom.

This is why so many judges are appointed, and not elected by the people.  Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief.  State judges are appointed by the Governors, the state military commanders (head of the State National Guard).  Judges are appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not “elect” military officers.

Gold-fringed flags only stand inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by “The Manual of Courts Martial”.  So, the next time you see this yellow fringed flag you will know what you are looking at and what it really means.  If you travel to Mexico and you see the National Flag of Mexico, you would know that you are under the jurisdiction of Mexico; and that Mexican laws govern you at that time.  That flag is your official notification when you see that flag.  You should understand that the gold fringed flag signifies the same thing.  It is a notification to you that you are under the rules and regulations of the military force that is flying that flag.

Government officials and judges often refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the official flag of the United States as defined in the constitution – which has NO fringe.  In 1933 President Theodore Roosevelt described that the admiralty, maritime or administration display of the flag is established by the presence of “gold fringe, gold braid, gold eagle, gold spear, or gold ball atop the flag pole.”  In 1979 these standards were set down in Army regulations as part of the War Powers Act.  By submitting a plea to this type of court, you are silently assenting, or agreeing, that this court has jurisdiction over you.  That is how the display of the fringed-flags allows our freedoms to be taken away.  Be advised.

By: J. Mark Soveign

 

List of Objections in American Law

This is a list of objections in American law:
Proper reasons for objecting to a question asked to a witness include:

  • Ambiguous, confusing, misleading, vague, unintelligible: the question is not clear and precise enough for the witness to properly answer.
  • Arguing the law: counsel is instructing the jury on the law.
  • Argumentative: the question makes an argument rather than asking a question.
  • Asked and answered: when the same attorney continues to ask the same question and they have already received an answer. Usually seen after direct, but not always.
  • Asks the jury to prejudge the evidence: the jury cannot promise to vote a certain way, even if certain facts are proved.
  • Asking a question which is not related to an intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge or challenge for cause: if opposing counsel asks such a question during voir dire (i.e. the jury selection process.)
  • Assumes facts not in evidence: the question assumes something as true for which no evidence has been shown.
  • Badgering: counsel is antagonizing the witness in order to provoke a response, either by asking questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer or by openly mocking the witness.
  • Best evidence rule: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available; for example, rather than asking a witness about the contents of a document, the actual document should be entered into evidence. Full original document should be introduced into evidence instead of a copy, but judges often allow copies if there is no dispute about authenticity. Some documents are exempt by hearsay rules of evidence.[2]
  • Beyond the scope: A question asked during cross-examination has to be within the scope of direct, and so on.
  • Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts.
  • Calls for speculation: the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
  • Compound question: multiple questions asked together.
  • Hearsay: the witness does not know the answer personally but heard it from another. However, there are several exceptions to the rule against hearsay in most legal systems.[2]
  • Incompetent: the witness is not qualified to answer the question.
  • Inflammatory: the question is intended to cause prejudice.
  • Leading question (Direct examination only): the question suggests the answer to the witness. Leading questions are permitted if the attorney conducting the examination has received permission to treat the witness as a hostile witness. Leading questions are also permitted on cross-examination, as witnesses called by the opposing party are presumed hostile.
  • Narrative: the question asks the witness to relate a story rather than state specific facts.
  • Privilege: the witness may be protected by law from answering the question.
  • Irrelevant or immaterial: the question is not about the issues in the trial.
  • Misstates evidence / misquotes witness / improper characterization of evidence: this objection is often overruled, but can be used to signal a problem to witness, judge and jury.[3]
  • Counsel is testifying: this objection is sometimes used when counsel is “leading” or “argumentative” or “assumes facts not in evidence.”

Proper reasons for objecting to material evidence include:

  • Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source.
  • Fruit of the poisonous tree: the evidence was obtained illegally, or the investigative methods leading to its discovery were illegal. Can be circumvented; see inevitable discovery
  • Incomplete: opposing party only introducing part of the writing (conversation/act/declaration), taken out of context. Under the evidence rule providing for completeness, other party can move to introduce additional parts.[4] If any documents presented for the review, the judge and other party entitled to a complete copy, not a partial copy, of the document. When a witness is presented with a surprise document, he should be able to take time to study it, before he can answer any questions.
  • Best evidence rule or hearsay evidence: requires that the original source of evidence is required, if available. However, some documents are self-authenticating under Rule 902, such as (1) domestic public documents under seal, (2) domestic public documents not under seal, but bearing a signature of a public officer, (3) foreign public documents, (4) certified copies of public records, (5) official publications, (6) newspapers and periodicals, (7) trade inscriptions and the like, (8) acknowledged documents (i.e. by a notary public), (9) commercial paper and related documents, (10) presumptions under Acts of Congress, (11) certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity, (12) certified foreign records of regularly conducted activity.[2]
  • More prejudicial than probative: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a judge has the discretion to exclude evidence if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.”

Proper reasons for objecting to a witness’s answer include:

  • Narrative: the witness is relating a story in response to a question that does not call for one.
  • Non-responsive: the witness’s response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all
  • Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question.

Example: “Did your mother call?” “Yeah. She called at 3:00.” Opposing counsel can object to the latter part of this statement, since it answers a question that was not asked. With some concern for annoying the court, counsel will selectively use this to prevent a witness from getting into self-serving answers.

References

Are you SICK of PAYING the Government to TRAVEL?

U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM “DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE” IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that” driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license”.

Some of these cases are:

Case # 1 – “Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. – Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

(“Regulated” here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 – “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 – “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.” –Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 – “Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.” – Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. Continue reading “Are you SICK of PAYING the Government to TRAVEL?”