On two occasions in trial the question I asked of a witness (also the state agent who made the claim/complaint) , was “How did you determine the conclusion you came to that there was a breach of the law? How did you decide this act was legal and that act was not?” (paraphrased)
The prosecutor objects and/or the judge interjects “they do not have to answer” because what they assert, the witness, who is ALSO the state agent making the complaint that an Act was breached, does not need to know the law. That their understanding of the law was not relevant??? What they know of the law is irrelevant… they are making legal conclusions about evidence based on a specific law but their understanding of the law is not important…hmmm.
How can ANY claim that a law was broken be made, if the claimant does not even know whether the “evidence” shows a breach of the law or what the law was/is?
Apparently in fiction court the state agent does not need to know or understand the law they claim to be enforcing….
As I said, this happened to me years ago and just recently. This video from Marc Stevens deals with the issue quite well. Beginning around the 12 min mark.
Now, Marc gets a little excited at times and makes a few assumptions, but he is right on by pointing this out.
The right to a fair trial REQUIRES the ability to properly cross examine a witness and the judge’s intervention and prevention of such full cross exam on a legitimate issue such as the knowledge of a state agent regards to the claim they are making, regarding legal conclusions, REQUIRES legal understanding to make a legal conclusion. No legal understanding of the legal conclusion impeaches/disqualifies the agent from making “unqualified legal conclusions” and the judge has prevented a fair hearing by shutting down questions along those lines.
Impeach the witness and mistrial the case because the judge loses jurisdiction by denying full cross exam.
Worth a listen at how corrupt judges and prosecutors work: