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

200 Videos Now On the Freedom from Government YouTube Channel!

 

Welcome to the Freedom from Government’s channel 200th video! Today I have a special treat for you, I am going to cruise the Las Vegas strip with PRIVATE tags, NO LICENSE, REGISTRATION, or INSURANCE! If you want to learn more about WHY (for example) these government documents are not only a pain and expensive to obtain and maintain, but learn how you actually give up your property when you register it and put “state plates” on it by visiting http://freedomfromgovernment.org . Stop being a voluntary victim!

Also see http://commonlawschool.org to learn how to handle traffic stops and court (plus MUCH MORE). And seehttp://shop.freedomfromgovernment.org for the private tags, “I’m NOT TALKING” stickers, and “EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS” cards, along with many other items like dash-cams, spycams, books, and more!

Thank you for watching and thank you for helping me get past 15 million views! Be sure to like and subscribe so that you stay with me for the next 200 videos!

A comment I received on my Facebook page.
A comment I received on my Facebook page.

Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust

Please be careful who you listen to, who you trust. Even be careful with what I say, use your own intuition. After all we are blessed with intuition and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. I would even expect you to question me and what I say, even though I know I would never intentionally lie to you.

The reason why I bring this topic up, is because there are infiltrators and provocateurs out there that are casting huge nets with which to build lists of names of individuals to be used later when larger scale “round ups” of liberty minded patriots begins.

The ones that are the ones that you should suspect first are those who close channels of communication rather that keep them open by responding and communicating with fair, open, and responsive communications. Those who do not respond or respond with slander, orders, negativity, or even just remaining silent are all signs that they may not be someone that you can trust. After all, these agencies and officers of government are only supposed to be there to serve and protect the rights and property of the people. There is no other reason for government, except perhaps defense of the homeland.

These agent provocateurs will also try to keep you in a narrow viewpoint about the situation, and not only will they express a narrow viewpoint, they will usually always try to influence you in a particular way. Sometimes they will try and convince you to not trust a particular individual, sometimes they will exhaustively promote particular individuals or groups.

These plants and government shills also commonly won’t give you a straight answer when you ask them a simple question, and their favorite response is to imply that there is a defect with the complainant to sidestep the actual complaint.

When I talk about those who should be suspected and placed under further scrutiny and background review, I am not just talking about individuals, there may also be shill groups, or organizations. And the ones that should be scrutinized the MOST are those who claim to either be actively affiliated with or employed by government, or those actively promoting ideologies claiming that the government is fair, just, honest, or unbiased.

13133243_244191322636622_309713294813844185_nNaturally those working for the government or benefiting from the government in some way are highly suspect, because they stand to lose the most by withdrawing or losing their support for the broken corrupt system. They are dependent on the government, why challenge it? They will also contradict themselves; for example they may express sympathy and support for the protesters, but at the same time will express support for the government and the “court system” in particular. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they will usually be slick talkers as well. But will rarely offer citations or evidence to prove their claims.

While we are on this subject, I would like to talk briefly about lawyers. And I have more information here if you are interested in learning more. But who has more to lose from the government than a lawyer? Not just any lawyer, but a lawyer that makes his living by arguing cases in government courthouses?

Don’t you think that the government would want to make sure that there were “attorneys” to defend the protesters? Keep them in the casino, where their chances are not good. And by not just any attorneys, but maybe even an attorney from the “Top 100” list of all trial attorneys to prepare their defense. One who has worked their whole career arguing in support of subjects of government who were mainly charged with “code” or “statute” violations. A vast majority of them without a victim, like DUII cases, and other trumped up “code” violations.

I don’t know about you, but after doing years of research on this topic. I have never found in the founding documents where the founders of this country ever suggested or implied that the people were bound by any “code”, “statute”, “rules”, “regulations” or “policy” of government. As a matter of fact the Declaration of Independence says exactly this: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…” Continue reading “Be Careful Who You Listen to and Trust”

Right to Travel Honored AGAIN! TWICE!

I was shown the following YouTube video and I was so impressed by it that I had to share it on the website. He brings up MANY great points! I am impressed by his level of knowledge. He says to just call up the D.A. and ask him if he knows that he is breaking the law, and that he is likely incurring a personal liability and the case disappears.

I also really like these tags! I would be careful if you have tags with the words “Private Property” on them. “Property” that is not owned by United States is property which one has a right to, not ownership of. If you are going to use these words, you need to be able to explain which definitions you are using. This also goes for citing any government “codes” or “statutes” on them. Don’t do it. We are not even allowed to use their codes, only remind them that they are their rules. I do offer these tags in the Freedom from Government store.

Not for hire. For NON-Commercial use only
Not for hire. For NON-Commercial use only

It never hurts to learn more about maintaining independence (contract avoidance) from any deceptive “state” near you.

The entire video is well worth watching, but you can skip to about 7 minutes and 30 seconds in the video below to see the two sheriff’s cruisers pass.

Video by Nagol Bud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0hooi3VDw

I also saw this video by psychokid 23 recently and it made me smile to see another new person doing this. Are YOU ready to break free yet?

Video by psychokid 23: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtiXsAU_WX8

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