Incompetency or Hearsay, and Does It Matter Under the Rules of Evidence?

Let’s say that you are appearing in court to defend yourself against one of the literally millions of false allegations perpetrated yearly by law enforcement personnel in the form of a “transportation” related civil infraction or criminal offense. Both are usually fine only punishments, and where they aren’t, the facts won’t differ between them in relation to the contents of this article. The rules of evidence work the same in either type of case. You just need to know them well enough to put them into action and nullify the prosecutions witness, and thus, their entire case.

When you are questioning the officer on the stand during the trial, and you attempt to ask the officer some question relating to the law, such as the legal definition of specific terminology, and it is something that the officer would logically and/or necessarily have to know in order to support reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or arrest for an allege an offense, you will often be interrupted by the prosecution objecting with the claim that the officer is not required to know the answer to the question. The prosecution will do this despite the fact that an officer actually is required and must know the answer to the question, because it would have been legally impossible for the officer to have obtained reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the officer either does not know and/or is incapable of recognizing the essential criminal elements necessary to enforce that law and allege an offense.

Now, while this might be a proper objection where your question is asked in a way that could not be reasonably comprehended and answered (i.e. the content, context, or grammar of your question totally sucked and made no sense), it would not be true if the question was very straightforward and clear. The prosecution’s objection would also be true if the question has nothing to do with the actual laws relating to the offense or the duties and responsibilities of the officer sitting on the stand (i.e. you asked a patrol officer about how the department determines personnel policy or handles a payroll issue). Otherwise, as long as your question is on-point with the law and facts of the case at hand, the officer would have to know the answer to the question in order to have ever acquired reasonable suspicion or probable cause so as to properly make the allegation of an offense. Therefore, it is simply legally impossible that the prosecution’s claim could be even remotely true in most instances or for every question relating to the law as it pertains to the matter before the court.

There is also the issue of the prosecutor making a statement of fact from their own mouth during a trial about what the officer is or is not required to know about the law in order to testify as to exactly how the officer applied that law in order to make an allegation of an offense. The prosecutor is actually trying to testify on the record as to what the officer is or is not required to know in order to answer the question, and this the prosecutor simply cannot do. A prosecutor may not make any original statement of fact from their own mouth in place of any witness, nor make any legal determinations about what the witness is or is not allowed to respond to on the stand. Nor does a prosecutor have any lawful purpose or delegated authority to determine what a police officer is or is not lawfully or legally required to know in order to perform their duties or testify to a statement of facts that the officer allegedly observed and used to formulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, as the officer could not possibly or reasonably formulate either if they actually don’t know the proper answer to the question s/he was asked on the stand about the legal meaning and application of certain terminology in relation to the alleged offense.

Part of the oath taken and the training received by every police officer is to uphold and enforce the State and Federal Constitutions,[1] and the laws of the state where they are employed,[2] i.e. they are required to know what fundamental rights are inherent and protected under those instruments in order to properly perform their duties. They also take an oath to know and remain current on the laws of the state[3] in which they are employed so as to properly perform their duties and serve the public.[4] These oaths and the duty to “know the law” are mandatory, as is adherence to their terms and conditions. An officer cannot reasonably claim ignorance of the content and meaning of the Bill of Rights or the legal duties inherently contained in the oaths s/he takes to uphold and protect those rights when they take them, otherwise the officer would not be employable. How then is it reasonable for some prosecutor or judge to assert that an officer can be partially or totally ignorant of the law and still be able to properly perform his or her duties in a manner that complies with that law and the individual rights of the people?

Therefore, it is simply not logically or legally possible that an officer is not or cannot be required to both know and understand the necessary and essential elements of any criminal act governed by a law they are attempting to enforce. To say that this is the case, as the prosecutor has just done, is to say that the officer is incompetent and unqualified to even understand the law, much less to enforce the law or testify to anything in relation to the specific elements of an alleged offense under that law. For example, if an officer is not required to know and understand what the proper legal definition of a “vehicle,” “driver,” or “operator” actually is, then how could an officer use these terms to acquire reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as they are essential key elements of any “transportation” related offense? How does an officer allege the element of “motor vehicle” in charging an offense without first having competent firsthand knowledge of what the legal meaning of “motor vehicle” even is? And that same question applies to each and every term and phrase that is used to construct a statute and any related offense therein.

*NOTE: As an aside, this shortcoming in legal logic is precisely why a criminal complaint is not required to be filed by a competent fact witness having firsthand knowledge of the facts alleged therein, as well as why its language is formulated as “I have reason to believe and do believe…” rather than “I have direct personal knowledge that the allegations made herein against John Smith are absolutely true.” therefore, while the person making the complaint may believe the alleged facts to be true, do they have actual competent firsthand knowledge that they really are true? This is an important point of law, for it is an irrefutable legal fact that, unless a person providing testimony absolutely does have competent firsthand personal knowledge of the alleged facts, s/he cannot legally testify to such facts under oath as actually being true, except when that person has been sworn in as an expert witness and allowed to submit opinion rather than fact, which the cop absolutely isn’t and cannot do.

It is a direct violation of the rules of evidence to allow the officer to testify to facts of which s/he does not have personal knowledge and understanding under the admissibility and hearsay rules. So, if the officer does not know the proper legal definition or meaning for each of these terms in the first place, then the officer is actually legally incompetent to testify to any of them as being an actual fact. It is illogical that a judge would accept the prosecutor’s objection as valid when logic says that a witness cannot make and testify to a statement of fact, i.e. that the accused was “operating” a “motor vehicle,” without first knowing the correct legal meaning and application of each of those terms within the governing statutes. It is a logical fallacy to assert that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and correct when the officer/witness or other Affiant on the complaint cannot reasonably be testifying from personal knowledge about those facts when they know absolutely nothing about their proper legal meaning within the statutes, especially when those specific terms are actual elements of the alleged offense.

So, the question must be asked, just how can an officer testify that “I saw the defendant operating a motor vehicle in the 1600 block of Fantasy Ave. …” when the officer cannot properly testify to what “operating” and “motor vehicle” even mean in relation to the statutory definition and the constitutionally required single subject[5] context? If the officer doesn’t know the legal definitions of the specific terms and phrases used to formulate the statute and establish the legal criteria that defines “operate” and “motor vehicle,” s/he is not testifying from personal knowledge, but from the hearsay of something or someone else other than the law itself.

Therefore, how does the officer truthfully testify that you were “operating” a “motor vehicle” by any means other than personal knowledge of the actual law under which s/he formulated the charge being made against you? Logic says that if the officer is legally capable and competent to formulate the charge itself by rationalizing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, then the officer is legally capable and competent to answer a question about the law and the specific legal elements s/he used to do it. Since there must be a written probable cause statement doing this very thing, and it must be signed by someone with actual knowledge of the facts alleged in the statement, it is incomprehensible that an officer could not and does not have to be required to know the legal definition and meaning of the statutory terms and phrases that they are signing their name to under penalty of perjury as being actual fact.

This is the same legal principle and theory that prevents an officer from testifying in a speeding case where s/he has no clue about how a radar gun works or its accuracy if s/he is not specifically trained on every aspect of the device, including how to maintain it, test it, and the specific mathematical formula it uses to perform its calculations and reaches its conclusions of speed. Otherwise, if the officer doesn’t know and can’t do the math themselves to verify the radar gun, then everything the officer does in these cases is hearsay motivated and operating by the impetus of the officer’s own personal opinion based upon unsubstantiated legal suppositions, presumptions, and conclusions of law, not the law.

In which case, when a prosecutor objects on the grounds that “the officer isn’t required to know that,” they are actually admitting that their witness is legally and factually incompetent to testify to those facts because they actually lack personal knowledge, and would be both committing perjury and violating the admissibility and hearsay rules by answering. This is why I object right back to the prosecutor’s objection with something like this:

I have a multipart objection to enter into the record in response judge:

First, I object because the prosecution is saying the officer is not required to know the specific legal criteria for the elements of the charge. Which, if true, means that the officer could not possibly provide any articulable facts supporting either reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the time of the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent. Without knowing the answer to this question, as it pertains directly to the statutory elements required to allege the commission of an offense, the officer could not possibly have had the required reasonable suspicion or probable cause to make the warrantless seizure and arrest or to charge an actual offense.

Second, I further object because I never asked the officer if s/he was required to know this information, I asked if s/he did know this information. As the court is now well aware, if the officer doesn’t know, then that means that probable cause could never have existed and the officer’s testimony is not based upon personal knowledge of any facts, but rather his/her own unsubstantiated personal opinion and legal presumptions, conclusions, and speculations, i.e. its hearsay. Which, if true, makes the officer’s testimony inadmissible under the rules of evidence, as such is not covered by any of the hearsay exceptions or the rules governing expert witnesses, especially since the officer has not been vetted and qualified to testify as an expert witness in this trial.

Third, in relation to the facts and logic of the first and second parts, what Respondent is actually understanding the prosecution’s objection to really mean is that their primary fact witness is legally incompetent to testify in response to the question, which is directly relating to specific factual elements in this case. Every relevant fact of the charged offense relates to some specific statutory element defining precisely how the commission of that offense occurs under the law. Factual elements that the prosecutor just stated the officer is not legally required to know, and, if true, now creates the legal presumption that the officer actually does not and never did know them at all, but is still being allowed to testify to them as being facts without having the personal knowledge required to do so. That violates Respondent’s right of due process and goes right back to reasonable suspicion and probable cause never having existed in the first instance, making the initial warrantless seizure and arrest of Respondent absolutely unconstitutional and illegal.

Fourth, I object to the prosecutor’s attempt to testify in this case by making a statement of fact disguised as an objection about what the witness is or is not required to know in order to testify to the facts of the case when it is legally impossible for this officer to do so without first having personal knowledge of the specific elements of any alleged offense under the laws in question, including the proper legal meaning and application of specific related terminology.

Therefore, if the court sustains the prosecutions objection, Respondent must necessarily move the court to have the witness’ testimony stricken from the record and declared inadmissible in its entirety, and to demand that the witness(es) be declared legally incompetent and unqualified to testify at all to any statutory fact element of the alleged offense for lack of personal knowledge.

In other words, most prosecutors will more often than not provide you with the means to discredit their own witness in these kinds of cases in exactly this or some very similar manner. You just have to listen and actually know how to rebut the objection that they will almost certainly make the instant that you try to prove the witness is legally incompetent to testify. Don’t let them get away with it.

Now, if the judge sustains the prosecutor’s objection, then you make yours to have the witness declared legally incompetent to testify to any facts in the case. If the judge sides with you and grants your motion, all that remains is for you to move the court to dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of evidence and/or an eyewitness with personal knowledge. Just make sure to get a signed order from the court before you leave, or get someone on record telling you when the order will be delivered to you via mail or other means.

Case closed.


[1] Texas Constitution, Art. 16, Sec. 1(a) OFFICIAL OATH.

[2] Texas Occupations Code, Sec. 1701.253(e).

[3] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 1 Texas Department of Public Safety, Chapter 1 Organization and Administration, Subchapter H Professional Conduct, Rule §1.113 International Association of Chiefs of Police Canons of Police Ethics.

[4] Texas Administrative Code, Title 37 Public Safety and Corrections, Part 7 Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Chapter 218 Continuing Education, Rule §218.3 Legislatively Required Continuing Education for Licensees.

[5] Texas Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 35 – Subjects and Titles of Bills.

Court – We’ve Won Another One!

Okay, the documents from this win is IN ADDITION TO the previous win that I announced, although it IS relating to the same individual as the previous win.

The statutes don’t lie, unlike the cops, attorneys, and courts. And like any other board game, if they can control the rules, they can control the game. So DON’T let them control the rules.  OBJECT to ANY deviation from the prescribed rules of procedure, EVEN if they have “case law” that allegedly sanctions their actions.

When my pleadings for the felony case are completed, I will be posting them in their ENTIRETY for all to see and study, because they will tell you a LOT about the total corruption that IS the judicial and Bar system.

And by the time you are done reading them, it is my hope that no attorney or judge on the planet will ever again feel safe about showing his or her sorry corrupt face outside of their door or walking down the street, because I am going to be exposing them for the rotting scumbags they are.




Californication – Why California Should be Allowed to Slide Into the Ocean…

Okay, here is yet another fine example of people that THINK they know what the hell they are talking about and what is actually going on.  Since this is from a California fake court setting for a traffic INFRACTION, I am not surprised at all by the comments, as the majority of folks there are socialist that can’t stop sucking statist balls long enough to form an individual libertarian thought of their own.  And it is in cases like theirs that I would have to actually agree that government micro-managing of every detail of their lives is necessary to keep them all from drowning in the bathtub or choking on their own stupidity.

This article goes hand-in-hand with my previous article on civil infractions in states that have them, and the interrogatories that you should file in a form of discovery pleading titled “Motion for Admissions/Interrogatories.”

I copied in the comments on the posted video that existed at the time of this writing, just in case some were changed or deleted. The link to the actual video posting can be found here:

My comment for the post is written into this article below as well as posted on the video comments.


While most of the comments here from the statist peanut gallery are not only dead wrong, they are dead wrong for reasons that none of you appear capable of comprehending, so I won’t bother to try and explain them to you now. It should be enough that you SHOULD at least make an actual effort to READ and completely UNDERSTAND the law and process that this video deals with before making clueless comments about who was wrong and why, because NONE of you know what the hell you are talking about. You’re actually blaming the guy that is the real VICTIM of what your state officials are doing in violation of your own state constitution and laws. But I suppose that I shouldn’t expect any of you to know or care about any of that either since it requires a brain and the ability to use it in order to do so.

That being said, the things I would have addressed with the moron pretending to be a valid judge if this had been me personally in a state where traffic infractions are CIVIL rather than criminal. CIVIL being precisely what they are in California, which the administrative hearing officer in this matter obviously has no clue of or is knowingly lying about in order to commit FRAUD, which he is, and which is an ACTUAL CRIME.

NEVER MENTION THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THESE MATTERS IN STATE COURTS!!  It didn’t apply to you when it was written, and it doesn’t apply to you now, UNLESS you are in a FEDERAL court. It has NOTHING to do with state matters UNLESS the state acts to violate those specific rights that the federal constitution requires the federal courts to protect. Cite your STATE CONSTITUTION instead and ALWAYS as your authority to tell these public serpents to go fuck themselves.

ALSO, NEVER call them “judge” or “your honor,” because these posers in these proceedings are NOT judicial officers acting judicially, they are ADMINISTRATIVE officers acting administratively, and they certainly aren’t real judges or possessing any ‘honor’ whatsoever. AND FINALLY, you must ALWAYS assert that you are there by special appearance as the FIRST THING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH!! Don’t even say “here” until you have made the statement in number one below.

Statements and questions for the criminal poser acting as a judge:

  1. “I am here by special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of these proceedings.”
  2. “Are you presiding over this proceeding in the capacity of a sworn judicial officer of the state of California?”
  3. “Is the nature of this matter alleged to be civil or criminal?”
  4. “By what lawful authority do you presume to act by both ignoring and overruling the judicial decisions of the California 3rd Court of Appeals, who has specifically ruled on no less than three separate occasions that traffic infractions in the State of California are NOT crimes?” (Provide copies of the three court cases: In re Kay (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 930 [83 Cal. Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142]; People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 2; People v. Sava, Cal.App.3d, Vol. 190 (1987)).
  5. “If this case is criminal as you allege, then I demand my inviolant right to a trial by jury as guaranteed and protected by Art. 1, Sec. 16 of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. MY rights.”
  6. “Furthermore, if this case is truly criminal, then I demand my inviolant right to be provided with assistance of counsel as guaranteed and protected by Art. 1, Sec. 15 of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.”
  7. “By what lawful authority do you presume to act in denying me in any fundamental right that is protected and guaranteed as inviolate by the provisions of the California Constitution’s Declaration of Rights?”
  8. “Objection! No judge in any court operating under the laws and constitution of the state of California has any more authority to ignore or deny the Accused’s inviolant protections and guarantees as written into the California constitution’s Declaration of Rights than you do, which is to say, none at all.”
  9. “I must inform you that your actions in this proceeding are not only criminal and civilly actionable, but also border on sedition and treason, and therefore, I hereby move that you be disqualified and remove yourself from these proceedings.”
  10. “If you refuse to remove yourself, you will leave me with no alternative but to file criminal charges and a civil rights violation lawsuit against you personally for your actions here today.”

rhashad881 year ago

You challenged his jurisdiction and he never proved it, the case should not have gone any further from that point till he proved his jurisdiction! Also, 5:13 he’s suppose to present his oath of office once asked to see it! Good job, you handled Caesar accordingly!


 RJD1851 year ago

Do you have a statue or code or case law that states he’s suppose to show his Oath because if he doesn’t then anyone can be a judge I could throw on a black robe today and people would call me a judge.?

 rhashad881 year ago

+RJD185 There are statues and codes, but the ultimate remedy that you would want to use would be Constitutional Law! Remember, Common Law; which is Constitutional Law, overrides ALL corporate statutes, codes, protocols, and legalese talk. When you use their codes your pulled back into their jurisdiction. It’s only good to quote their stuff to show how ridiculous and hypocritical their statues and codes are. However, in regards to your question when you asked for him to present his oath of office you were challenging his position; which is jurisdiction, to first establish is he authorized from Congress and an Article 3 Judge to even hear the case! Check out the link, remember these are SUPREME COURT CASES and they are over these lower courts and have final rulings in the matter! Put a period where it says (DOT) at. link: http://freedom-school(DOT)com/jurisdiction/challenge-jurisdiction(DOT)html

 rhashad881 year ago

+RJD185 Above ALL and most importantly, what is your STATUS when you enter a court-room?….

Kirill Prokopenko (kprokopenko)1 year ago

+rhashad88 +1

philipem10002 months ago

The judge knows the law and the processes involved, and he has heard this crap all before. He did not take the nonsense…May I see your oath of office? “No.” Because it is pure nonsense that he has to show it to you. Not the law. He entered a plea of not guilty for you and you tried to claim that was a determination and he said it meant you had to appear for trial. When you said you wouldn’t he didn’t care because he knows what happens when people don’t. Because he knows the laws, the process, the procedures. And the stuff you’ve been sold and are peddling is nonsense. However I am enjoying the videos and look forward to the rest of the story.


Steve E1 year ago

You’re an idiot!!! Makes me laugh when retards think they know the law better the judge, or any lawyer in the court… lol, hilarious!!!


glimpcy637 months ago

i appreciate this video it gave me some insight point one when you claimed U.S. constitution the judge wanted you to also claim state constitution and he states that’s very important. i wonder why (jurisdiction). second he stated you had promised to follow all the rules when you applied to the dmv (contract). this gives me an idea to sign the license under duress or apply for a non-driver id


Cliff Yablonski1 year ago

These morons always lose in court hope he got some jail time instead of a fine.


YTtardsmustdie1 year ago

same fail………


Greg Ward1 year ago

Sounds like he gave you the answer right there at the end. “You took a test by the DMV and signed saying you will abide by the rules, and now you want to not abide by them…” So, rescinding the license and asserting there is no contract. That being said, from experience on the road, much more difficult. Good attempt to assert your rights brother.. Blessings.

Things to Know About “Civil Infractions” if Your State Has Them

Okay, for those of you that live in a Republic where ‘traffic’ citations are issued as “civil infractions,” here are a couple of suggestions on what to file and why.

When you are STOPPED and DETAINED by an officer for a civil infraction the legal facts are that the officer has perpetrated an illegal and unlawful seizure and false arrest/imprisonment the moment he perpetrated the stop. He both COULD have known and SHOULD have known that his actions violated your rights and the law. Therefore, EVERYTHING he did or discovered during that detainment/seizure of your person and property was ILLEGAL and should be challenged and declared as inadmissible facts, testimony, and evidence under the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.

You will need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence and jurisdiction as they CANNOT obtain evidence OR jurisdiction using ILLEGAL means can they? Obviously the correct answer is NO! The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) is written into a Motion for Discovery, which they MUST answer in relation to your right to discovery in a civil proceeding, which your particular state law should declare that a case such as this is.

You also need to file a Motion to Dismiss. I would vehemently suggest that you use verbatim the specifically worded Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) asking the officer and the plaintiff’s attorney (the alleged ‘prosecutor’) those specific questions relating to the facts of the case. Also consider that, since this is a CIVIL INFRACTION, then HOW can there possibly be an actual PROSECUTOR rather than a PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY representing the other side?

The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories in a Motion for Discovery should contain THESE specific questions, just like they are written below. They should work perfectly in ANY state of the union where these cases are CIVIL INFRACTIONS. You have to change only the [Your State] and the “Officer Shitforbrains” to the name of your particular state where the issue occurred and is a civil infraction and the real name of the officer that perpetrated the stop:

1) “Is the allegation being made considered to be a CIVIL INFRACTION under [Your State] law?”

2) “Can a warrantless arrest or detention be lawfully perpetrated in relation to a CIVIL matter under [Your State] law?”

3) “May a warrant of arrest be obtained WITHOUT a valid statement of probable cause under [Your State] law?”

4) “Under [Your State] law, is a statement of probable cause sufficient to obtain a warrant of arrest if it does NOT allege that an actual crime was perpetrated by the person named or described therein to be arrested?”

5) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause authorizing a warrantless detention or arrest of an individual?”

6) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required probable cause necessary to state sufficient grounds of criminal activity in order for a duly authorized magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest for an individual?”

7) “Was Officer Shitforbrains in possession of a valid warrant of arrest for a male/female suspect using the name “[Your Name Here]” or that contained an adequate physical description that allowed the officer to identify and apprehend the individual accused in this CIVIL INFRACTION?”

The point of the interrogatories is to show that the warrantless detention/arrest of the individual by the officer was both completely unlawful AND illegal BECAUSE there could NEVER have been any reasonable suspicion or probable cause associated with the warrantless seizure of the Accused for a CIVIL INFRACTION. Making ANYTHING that was obtained or discovered by the officer during the detention/arrest for ANY purpose INADMISSIBLE under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY that can be made, no proof that can be offered, thus, NO CASE of controversy before the court. No case or controversy, no jurisdiction of ANY KIND.

If anyone sees any error to the logic or argument, please feel free to point them out.


Also, here are a few California cases that make the point that infractions in that state are NOT crimes, thus, they too ARE civil only.

In re Kay (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 930 [83 Cal. Rptr. 686, 464 P.2d 142]

People v. Battle, 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 2

People v. Sava, Cal.App.3d, Vol. 190 (1987)