What do they say.....only a fool represent themselves in a court of law?  That's what happened this morning and this is my conclusion.  I'm a fool to engage my wife at all when she opens with....I want to talk.  Bullshit!  You want to debate in legal court with you being the prosecuting attorney and me being the defendant.  "Nice shoot'in soldier but two can play at that game".  (This is an informative vent on how not to talk to your spouse unless you want to piss them off......first objection.....BADGERING THE WITNESS!!

I jjamieson APPEAR now on Sunday 5/31/2015  in the case of my wife and I because I'm pissed off when she says she wants to talk and violates all the rules of two people speaking with each other and instead...

wants to "give me her mind and just be heard."  WTF...is this an editorial or an opinion?  Or is it Journalism 101....just the facts?  What happened to the 3 part essay you know:  introduction, body and summary.  Where's the summary?  Where's the conclusion? Are you talking at me like a legal argument or debate...or are you talking to me like I'm a person?  A legal debate is an open ended argument to the jury and the judge makes the decision.  Where's the jury?  Where's the judge?  Where's the fucking court room???? I thought you just wanted to talk?   I am clearly the defendant in this case but had not idea where I was......silly me.  Today I saw it while it was happening and decided in all fairness to me, as my own council to  OBJECT on the following grounds:

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.
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."

all the above  CHECK

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

Non-responsive: the witness's response constitutes an answer to a question other than the one that was asked, or no answer at all  CHECK
Nothing pending: the witness continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question. CHECK

SUSTAINED......witness is required to give a response and refuses and is currently in self imposed contempt of court until the judge has time to think about it.

Conclusion?   as at the end of every Perry Mason re-run I ever watched.....in the last minutes of the show the defendant (in this case my wife since I got up to speed here) would break down an emotional cry and say "Don't you understand....I had to do it!!!!"

Court is in recess until further notice.  Thanks for hearing me while I vented  lol