Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

And then when I start going down to the actual nitty gritty details, I always wind up with legal conclusions.

Legal conclusion and a legal

We can't go in with a legal conclusion

You can testify that you were operating a vehicle while in commerce, but driving a motor vehicle would be a legal conclusion based on the fact that you were in commerce.

But again, how does he come to the legal conclusion you were engaged in commerce unless you admitted to being engaged in commerce?

I've heard people make that argument but it always winds up an argument that goes to a legal conclusion

You know, that's a legal conclusion.

And I can't get from the legal conclusion to the facts that led them to those conclusions.

We're still going by conclusion here, and this is always my concern is we can't get there on legal conclusion.

So in trying to figure out how this works, they seem to be jumping to a lot of legal conclusions.

That's a legal conclusion.

I need the law that leads me there, and I can't get there with legal conclusion.

Then he becomes a constitutional judge, but he acts in a constitutional capacity. And if I sound like I'm particular about people drawing legal conclusions, this was one of my pet ones.

Now we're going back to legal conclusions. They claim to be operating under a statutory law,

As long as we never go to a legal conclusion, I can't get there by legal conclusion.

They make their own legal conclusions and bring legal theory into the cases of the way they think it ought to be,

They come to the court with their own legal conclusions and they get thrown out every single time.

but I get a lot of people coming to me with a lot of legal conclusions and ideas.

And you have to work at separating legal conclusion from fact.

And then if I want to express a legal conclusion, then I say plaintiff alleges and asserts that now I'm giving a legal conclusion, not a fact.

And if there's any place we state a conclusion, a legal conclusion or a legal opinion,

Now, if the judge feels that one of our facts is really not a fact but a legal conclusion,

That's our legal conclusion.

assumes certain facts not in evidence nor previously agreed to and require a legal conclusion to

Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion

Again, objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion

And the witness is having to make a legal conclusion in that their use of these terms

So if the witness is not capable and competent to make a legal conclusion, which they aren't,

to make a legal conclusion to begin with, but they're not competent to testify to that

legal conclusion in court.

Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion

Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness if they're actually trying to get it from a witness.

and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

And requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness

They want to argue that the witness cannot make a legal conclusion.

Well, the prosecutor's going to object to that line of questioning because it requires a legal conclusion.

The officer made a legal conclusion when he issued the citation. Without a legal conclusion, he could not make a determination that the law was allegedly violated.

not agreed to, requires a legal conclusion

He is making a presumption and has jumped to a legal conclusion that because you're in a car, you're in transportation.

It's a three-part legal objection. Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness we do that because we're not going to

in evidence not agreed to and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness okay

For instance, someone, the prosecutor, the judge or the witness uses the term motor vehicle, you immediately state objection assumes facts not an evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

Well he's allowing the witness to make a legal conclusion and the witness is not capable

Objection assumes facts, not an evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

When the prosecutor or the witness uses a word like operates, vehicle, driver, driving, anything of that nature, objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

And I want to tell you exactly how I came to that legal conclusion.

Objection assumes facts, not an evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

The officer by trying to use the term is drawing a legal conclusion that you were in a vehicle associated with commerce.

Hence, the last part of the objection requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

Okay. The objection is as follows. Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

And so that requires a legal conclusion by the witness.

Then he's incompetent to enforce the statute to begin with because he has to make a legal conclusion about its meaning to even do that.

And if he made a legal conclusion to enforce it, then he has the authority to testify as to what was going on in his micro brain when he did it.

Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion

or stop at, requires a legal conclusion if anyone else is using the phraseology,

a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

Avoid any, try to avoid legal conclusions unless they're absolutely necessary.

evidence not agreed to and requires a legal conclusion if their witness is the

one saying it then end it with and requires a legal conclusion by the fact

But one of the other things you can do is start asking him to make legal conclusions on the stand.

Objection requires legal conclusion by the witness.

You start it with objection, and then you continue it with assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.

If the witness uses the terms, then you add to the very end of that and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

In one of his items, he makes a legal conclusion which basically gets thrown out, and then in another one, he testifies as to the knowledge of other witnesses.

They're making a legal conclusion based upon their opinion and nothing more

So, we say objection to the use of the term driving and vehicle assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion by the fact witness.

Now, why does it require a legal conclusion?

Objection to the use of the term police officer assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion.

The prosecutor will go, Judge, he's sitting there in his uniform. We all know he's a police officer. Objection to the use of the term police officer assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion.

Never make proactive statement of law out of your own mouth. Never make a proactive, never give the judge a legal conclusion without having given the judge sufficient facts to come to the same conclusion.

The use assumes facts not in evidence, not probably agreed to and previously agreed to previous agreed to and require a legal conclusion.

or is that a legal conclusion?

If I'm going to make this argument, I can't do it by legal conclusion.

That is a whole bunch of legal conclusion.

That way you're not asking for legal advice or for a legal conclusion or argument on their part.

and requires a legal conclusion.

and it's requiring a legal conclusion by the witness because they don't know the definition of it any better.

All you do is object to it. Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.

and have the system scour all of the laws and come to the appropriate legal conclusion.

a legal conclusion by the fact witness. That will be overruled and we will

in evidence not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion by this

Assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.

In other words, you didn't put it in your pleading and it calls for a legal conclusion.

calls for a legal conclusion.

Well, but that's a legal conclusion, and we don't know why they rescinded it

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa I'm not asking you to make legal conclusions especially if you can't prove them I'm asking you is there state law that authorizes towns cities villages whatever to install red light cameras

make competent binding legal conclusions and determinations.

Most of it's where a lot of things, there's a legal conclusion

That's clearly a legal conclusion.

It's just a statement of legal conclusion.

in a two-part inquiry, first distinguishing between factual allegations and legal conclusions.

Now, I'd like to come back to legal conclusions that I think that needs some further defining,

Say that again because I butchered it, because the latter, that is legal conclusions,

distinguishes between factual allegations and legal conclusions, because

Not an issue before the court calls for a legal conclusion.

Because that's a legal conclusion, and he's not allowed to make it, so how could he testify to it?

Question is the court creating a legal conclusion for the record?

If the court is making a legal conclusion and creating a separate definition outside

I never ever, in the statement of facts, go to a legal conclusion, other than saying this

Well, that is your legal conclusion is what the judge said. He had me be sitting in there

And I asked her, I say, is that a legal conclusion that you're making? Because what she's doing,

Now that was a legal conclusion and it raises the question, how do you get there?

Now understand that when you ask them to make legal conclusions or opinions or to recite stuff off the top of their head, that's what you're going to get

Then can you please explain how you came to the legal conclusion that I was in any way, shape or form operating a motor vehicle for the purpose of transportation?

Okay, so like everything else so far, you're operating entirely on presumptions, not facts or evidence, and your own legal conclusions despite a lack of facts and evidence. Is that correct?

All he should have done was say objection, assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion,

Objection assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion.

So would you rebut it with objection, assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to, and requires a legal conclusion?

So I haven't had anyone yet present anything on the Post regarding any error in my reasoning on this or my legal conclusions based upon what they're doing.

it's not a fact at all, but it's an opinion or legal conclusion. Go back and look at it,

Well, here's the problem. First and foremost, that's a legal conclusion, which a moron in blue is not qualified or empowered to make.

Then how could you possibly have reached the legal conclusion that they had committed an offense for which you could arrest them or even issue a citation?

How can he make a legal conclusion in the field and then not have to know what he's testifying to in court?

Requires a legal conclusion.

I read it, and there was no this dirty rotten scoundrel, and no, there were no legal conclusions

be sworn to as being a statement of actual fact. It is a statement of legal conclusions

personal perspectives and beliefs and or legal conclusions of the

is speculation, presumption, opinion, and legal conclusion

that I was crazy, reciting Fred Baer allegations and coming up to legal conclusions and frivolous

in the case when I put in writing that legal conclusion without any case law, he put in

None. Therefore, he is offering only his opinion and a legal conclusion

The facts are not in evidence and requires a legal conclusion. She overrules me. Nothing I can do.

He is testifying as to his opinion and his legal conclusion

The judge is making a legal conclusion.

of an opinion that he said or actually his legal conclusion in court. It was at a court hearing

anything like that, they're just opinions and legal conclusions which are inadmissible by the cop

The story will have fact and legal conclusion in it.

So opposed to constitution, did they have to give you precisely what they're charging you with and how they get to, they can't make claims based on legal conclusions.

Responding party objects to this request because it calls for a legal conclusion.

Well, a lawyer can give a legal conclusion, but he can't be compelled to admit to a legal

a legal conclusion on.

and legal conclusions, which he can't offer up as evidence of anything. And he is well

and the legal conclusions that bring you to this point, then you state,

that you put on the record and the law you bring in support of the legal conclusions

Absolutely. Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, requires a legal conclusion. I mean all kinds of things. Not previously agreed to.

Assumes facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to and requires a legal conclusion.

Objection, judge, that is a legal conclusion and a statement of fact.

Therefore, how's he going to prove it other than by his own legal conclusions and opinion, which a cop cannot introduce?

The proper thing to say would be objection, speculation, legal conclusion.

that these are in fact factual rather than legal conclusions or personal opinions.

The fact is, is that any time they use those terms and no evidence has been submitted into the record to substantiate those terms, they are opinions, legal conclusions, and perceptions.

We object as soon as facts not in evidence, not previously agreed to in other words, I never agreed that those were correct uses of the terminology and that they were applicable in this case and requires a legal conclusion, which they do, which the officer is not allowed to make, and certainly not allowed to submit as evidence.

they'll say that then i have to inform them to cease and desist with malicious prosecution there's no there was no legal conclusion to it no trial by jury no evidence no damage no harm to anybody else so it's invalid cease and desist the call and then they disconnect the call and then they never called back okay so that's what the result of that is and

Well, cheating me out all this money, the dirty rotten rascals is legal conclusions.

Well, the thing about it is this, the probable cause statement is supposed to contain actual facts, not legal conclusions or presumptions.

every single thing in that probable cause statement is a legal conclusion or presumption by the person making it.

It says that this year courts should review the bankruptcy courts' legal conclusions.

clear error in the bankruptcy court's legal conclusion or factual findings.

actually your legal conclusion or something that can be, somebody can point in, now these

And whether or not your car was being used as a motor vehicle is entirely his own opinion or legal conclusion

No. See, that, again, is a legal conclusion on your part.

There's another legal conclusion.

But she, the one thing that was super just ridiculous was that she used the objection of making legal conclusions,

That's a legal conclusion beyond his ability to make.

Now because they don't have any actual evidence to support the legal conclusions of this officer,

That means they can use hearsay evidence, they can use legal conclusions made by a witness

of the facts and the witness was prosecuted based entirely upon statements and legal conclusions

legal conclusion on the stand as if it is valid evidence.

They're just letting the cop make their own legal conclusions and presuming those conclusions

or your legal conclusions about, well, the court, I've already rescinded all the contracts or don't

We have been pontificating all kinds of legal conclusions pontificating.