District Attorney's Offices

It is well known how certain individuals simply check out mentally before they have even begun to fulfill their obligations—some young women, some grown men. Of course, there are rejections due to inconsistencies, incomplete filings, or similar technicalities, but those officials are duty-bound to act on the substance of a report rather than its mere outward appearance. They ought to focus on the potential wrongdoing itself instead of scrutinizing the whistleblower. After all, they are supposed to be the experts here.

It is clear that if a case is dismissed in the line of duty, the aggrieved party can always pursue private litigation. However, I am curious about the specific legal avenues available in such scenarios—things like administrative appeals, formal objections, and potentially bringing a case before the Supreme Court. We often see the "silent treatment" from bureaucracy through endless delays and that notorious FJP.
The procedures are outlined, yet one still needs to be an expert to navigate them, given the frequent exceptions made in official conduct. It is frustrating how the Department of Justice often acts as little more than a bystander or a mere observer, even when there are blatant and egregious violations of US Federal Law... despite the fact that they are strictly required to report and prosecute criminal offenses...

So, I say this to the experts—and to those who feel like they are—use your experience and your insights from behind the curtain in the fight against the wind turbines. Offer what you can, if only to help keep the matador’s momentum going.

thanks

bump:

What is going on here? Does nobody have any interest in discussing the State Judicial Council, or am I simply shouting into the void?
We need to address how to purge those who clearly have no business being part of the judiciary.---

Jerry Robinson56 said:It is well known how certain individuals simply check out mentally before they have even begun to fulfill their obligations—some young women, some grown men. Of course, there are rejections due to inconsistencies, incomplete filings, or similar technicalities, but those officials are duty-bound to act on the substance of a report rather than its mere outward appearance. They ought to focus on the potential wrongdoing itself instead of scrutinizing the whistleblower. After all, they are supposed to be the experts here.

It is clear that if a case is dismissed in the line of duty, the aggrieved party can always pursue private litigation. However, I am curious about the specific legal avenues available in such scenarios—things like administrative appeals, formal objections, and potentially bringing a case before the Supreme Court. We often see the "silent treatment" from bureaucracy through endless delays and that notorious FJP.
The procedures are outlined, yet one still needs to be an expert to navigate them, given the frequent exceptions made in official conduct. It is frustrating how the Department of Justice often acts as little more than a bystander or a mere observer, even when there are blatant and egregious violations of US Federal Law... despite the fact that they are strictly required to report and prosecute criminal offenses...

So, I say this to the experts—and to those who feel like they are—use your experience and your insights from behind the curtain in the fight against the wind turbines. Offer what you can, if only to help keep the matador’s momentum going.

thanks

First off, I have to say, I am definitely not an expert.

There are all sorts of rumors floating around. Incompetence and corruption are always possibilities. Most regular folks are just influenced by what they see in movies. It’s hard to imagine that actual government prosecutors are going to fight like cinematic heroes for the Constitution, the law, or justice.

Regardless, if a complaint isn't accepted and the party is told to pursue a private lawsuit, it basically means nobody is going to conduct a real investigation. When a court looks at a private lawsuit, they’re just going to follow the police reports and the Department of Justice's decision to dismiss the initial charge. How is a private prosecutor supposed to kickstart an investigation when neither the police nor the DOJ—who are the ones actually supposed to manage the investigation, if I'm not mistaken—have bothered to do it?

Drew Reed6 said:First off, I have to say, I am definitely not an expert.

There are all sorts of rumors floating around. Incompetence and corruption are always possibilities. Most regular folks are just influenced by what they see in movies. It’s hard to imagine that actual government prosecutors are going to fight like cinematic heroes for the Constitution, the law, or justice.

Regardless, if a complaint isn't accepted and the party is told to pursue a private lawsuit, it basically means nobody is going to conduct a real investigation. When a court looks at a private lawsuit, they’re just going to follow the police reports and the Department of Justice's decision to dismiss the initial charge. How is a private prosecutor supposed to kickstart an investigation when neither the police nor the DOJ—who are the ones actually supposed to manage the investigation, if I'm not mistaken—have bothered to do it?

It’s all through the investigative judge.